text:
# BRST symmetries in free particle system on toric geometry

## I Introduction

It is well known in string theory that toric geometry is a generalization of the projective identification that defines $`CP^n`$ corresponding to the most general linear sigma model, and it provides a scheme for constructing Calabi-Yau manifolds and their mirrors pol . Recently, on the basis of boundary string field theory witten92 , the brane-antibrane system was exploited hotta  in the toroidal background to investigate its thermodynamic properties associated with the Hagedorn temperature witten88 ; witten01 . The Nahm transform and moduli spaces of $`CP^n`$ models were also studied on the toric geometry aguado02 . In a four dimensional, toroidally compactified heterotic string, the electrically charged BPS-saturated states were shown to become massless along the hypersurfaces of enhanced gauge symmetry of a two-torus moduli subspace cvetic96 .

The Becci-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST) symmetries brst  have been constructed for constrained systems hongpr  in the Batalin-Fradkin-Vilkovisky (BFV) scheme bfv . In order to treat rigorously the constraints involved in the systems, the Dirac quantization was proposed di , and it was later improved by converting a second-class constraint system into a first-class one in the Batalin-Fradkin-Tyutin (BFT) embedding bft , where the BRST symmetries can be generated.

Recently, the gauge symmetry enhancement was studied hong03prd  on target space of Grassmann manifold in the Dirac Hamiltonian formalism, and the BRST invariant effective Lagrangian was also realized in noncommutative D-brane system with NS $`B`$-field hongbrst . To show novel phenomenological aspects cs , the compact form of the first-class Hamiltonian has been also constructed hong99o3  for the O(3) nonlinear sigma model, which has been also studied rothe03  to investigate the symplectic structures faddeev88  and BFT embeddings.

In this paper, we will construct a first-class Hamiltonian by introducing the Stückelberg coordinates associated with the geometrical constraints on the torus. In the BFV scheme, we will then find a BRST-invariant gauge fixed Lagrangian including ghosts and anti-ghosts, and the corresponding BRST transformation rules. We will also construct the spectrum and the symplectic structures of the free particle system on the torus. In Sec. II, we will introduce a free particle system residing on a torus, to construct the first-class Hamiltonian and Dirac brackets. In Sec. III, we will introduce canonical sets of ghosts and anti-ghosts in the BFV scheme, to construct the BRST symmetric effective Lagrangian. In Sec. IV, we will obtain the spectrum of the free particle on the torus to figure out the particle dynamics. In Sec. V, we will study the symplectic structures involved in the second-class system on the torus.

## II First-class constraints and Hamiltonian

In this section, we consider a free particle system residing on a torus, whose Lagrangian is of the form

$$L_0=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{r}^2+\frac{1}{2}mr^2\dot{\theta }^2+\frac{1}{2}m(b+r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2\dot{\varphi }^2.$$
(2.1)
where we have used toroidal coordinates $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ for toric geometry

$$x_1=(b+r\mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,x_2=(b+r\mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,x_3=r\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(2.2)
to satisfy

$$((x_1^2+x_2^2)^{1/2}b)^2+x_3^2=r^2.$$
(2.3)
Note that we have now a torus with axial circle in the $`x_1`$-$`x_2`$ plane centered at the origin, of radius $`b`$, having a circular cross section of radius $`r`$, and the angle $`\theta `$ ranges from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$, and the angel $`\varphi `$ from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$. To fulfill the toric geometry (2.3), we can also exploit anther toroidal coordinates $`(\mu ,\eta ,\varphi )`$ defined as mo

$$x_1=\frac{c\mathrm{sinh}\mu \mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\mathrm{cosh}\mu \mathrm{cos}\eta },x_2=\frac{c\mathrm{sinh}\mu \mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\mathrm{cosh}\mu \mathrm{cos}\eta },x_3=\frac{c\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{cosh}\mu \mathrm{cos}\eta },$$
(2.4)
where $`\mu `$ ranges from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\eta `$ from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$, and $`\varphi `$ from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$. Here, we have relations between these two coordinate systems (2.2) and (2.4),

$$r=\frac{c}{\mathrm{sinh}\mu },\theta =\mathrm{cos}^1\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\mu \mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{cosh}\mu \mathrm{cos}\eta },\varphi =\varphi ,b=c\mathrm{coth}\mu .$$
(2.5)
Now, we impose the condition that the particle is constrained to satisfy a geometrical constraint

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1=ra0.$$
(2.6)
By performing the Legendre transformation, one can obtain the canonical Hamiltonian,111One can include the constraint (2.6) explicitly in the Lagrangian to yield $`L=L_0+u(ra)`$ with a Lagrangian multiplier $`u`$. One can then obtain a primary constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=p_u`$ with $`p_u`$ being momentum conjugate to $`u`$. The Hamiltonian is then given by $`H_T=H_0u(ra)`$ and successive time evolutions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ reproduce $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=ra`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=p_r`$. The condition $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_2,H_T\}=0`$ fixes value of $`u`$, namely $`u=p_\theta ^2/(mr^3)p_\varphi ^2\mathrm{sin}\theta /(m(b+r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^3)`$, which can terminate series of constraints. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is first-class, one can thus end up with two second-class constraints $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$, which are used in the context.

$$H_0=\frac{p_r^2}{2m}+\frac{p_\theta ^2}{2mr^2}+\frac{p_\varphi ^2}{2m(b+r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}$$
(2.7)
where $`p_r`$, $`p_\theta `$ and $`p_\varphi `$ are the canonical momenta conjugate to the coordinates $`r`$, $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$, respectively, given by

$$p_r=m\dot{r},p_\theta =mr^2\dot{\theta },p_\varphi =m(b+r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2\dot{\varphi }.$$
(2.8)
The time evolution of the constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ yields an additional secondary constraint

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2=p_r0$$
(2.9)
and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ form a second-class constraint algebra

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{kk^{}}=\{\mathrm{\Omega }_k,\mathrm{\Omega }_k^{}\}=ϵ_{kk^{}}$$
(2.10)
with $`ϵ_{12}=ϵ_{21}=1`$. Since the constraints are second-class, we can define Dirac bracket

$$\{F,G\}_D=\{F,G\}\{F,\mathrm{\Omega }_k\}\mathrm{\Delta }^{kk^{}}\{\mathrm{\Omega }_k^{},G\}$$
(2.11)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{kk^{}}`$ being the inverse of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{kk^{}}`$ in (2.10) to yield

$$\{r,p_r\}_D=0,\{\theta ,p_\theta \}_D=1,\{\varphi ,p_\varphi \}_D=1.$$
(2.12)
In the forthcoming section, the Dirac brackets (2.12) will be discussed in terms of symplectic brackets. In the quantum level, these Dirac brackets produce the following commutator relations

$$[r,p_r]=0,[\theta ,p_\theta ]=i\mathrm{},[\varphi ,p_\varphi ]=i\mathrm{}.$$
(2.13)
Following the BFT embedding bft  which systematically converts the second-class constraints into first-class ones, we introduce the Stückelberg coordinates $`(\eta ,p_\eta )`$ with the Poisson brackets

$$\{\eta ,p_\eta \}=1,$$

to obtain the first-class constraints as follows

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\eta =ra\eta ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2+p_\eta =p_r+p_\eta .`$ (2.14)
Note that these first-class constraints yield a strongly involutive first-class constraint algebra $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j\}=0`$, which is related with the first Dirac bracket in (2.12) and that the particle is geometrically constrained to reside on the torus with the modified radius $`r=a+\eta `$ in the extended phase space.

Next, we construct the first-class Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0`$ as a power series in the Stückelberg coordinates $`(\eta ,p_\eta )`$ by demanding that they are strongly involutive: $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i,\stackrel{~}{H}_0\}=0`$. After some algebra, we obtain the first-class Hamiltonian,

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_0=\frac{(p_r+p_\eta )^2}{2m}+\frac{p_\theta ^2}{2m(r\eta )^2}+\frac{p_\varphi ^2}{2m(b+(r\eta )\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}.$$
(2.15)
A problem with $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0`$ in (2.15) is that it does not naturally generate the first-class Gauss law constraint from the time evolution of the constraint $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1`$. By introducing an additional term proportional to the first-class constraints $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0`$, we obtain an equivalent first-class Hamiltonian

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=\stackrel{~}{H}_0p_\eta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2,$$
(2.16)
which naturally generates the Gauss law constraint

$$\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1,\stackrel{~}{H}\}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2,\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2,\stackrel{~}{H}\}=0.$$
(2.17)
One notes here that $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ act in the same way on physical states, which are annihilated by the first-class constraints. Similarly, the equations of motion for observables remain unaffected by the additional term in $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$. Furthermore, in the limit $`(\eta ,p_\eta )0`$, our first-class system is exactly reduced to the original second-class one.

## III BRST symmetries and effective Lagrangian

In this section, we introduce canonical sets of the ghosts and anti-ghosts together with the Lagrangian multipliers in the BFV scheme bfv , which is applicable to theories with the first-class constraints,

$$(𝒞^i,\overline{𝒫}_i),(𝒫^i,\overline{𝒞}_i),(N^i,B_i),(i=1,2),$$

which satisfy the super-Poisson algebra

$$\{𝒞^i,\overline{𝒫}_j\}=\{𝒫^i,\overline{𝒞}_j\}=\{N^i,B_j\}=\delta _j^i.$$

Here the super-Poisson bracket is defined as

$$\{A,B\}=\frac{\delta A}{\delta q}|_r\frac{\delta B}{\delta p}|_l(1)^{\eta _A\eta _B}\frac{\delta B}{\delta q}|_r\frac{\delta A}{\delta p}|_l,$$

where $`\eta _A`$ denotes the number of fermions, called the ghost number, in $`A`$ and the subscript $`r`$ and $`l`$ denote right and left derivatives, respectively.

In our model, the nilpotent BRST charge $`Q`$ defined as

$$Q=𝒞^i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i+𝒫^iB_i,$$
(3.1)
and the BRST invariant minimal Hamiltonian $`H_m`$ given by

$$H_m=\stackrel{~}{H}𝒞^1\overline{𝒫}_2,$$
(3.2)
satisfy the relations

$$\{Q,H_m\}=0,Q^2=\{Q,Q\}=0.$$
(3.3)
Our next task is to fix the gauge, which is crucial to identify the BFT auxiliary coordinate $`\eta `$ with the Stückelberg coordinate. The desired identification follows if we choose the fermionic gauge fixing function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\overline{𝒞}_i\chi ^i+\overline{𝒫}_iN^i,$$
(3.4)
with the unitary gauge

$$\chi ^1=\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\chi ^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_2.$$
(3.5)
Here note that the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ satisfies the following identity

$$\{\{\mathrm{\Psi },Q\},Q\}=0.$$
(3.6)
The effective quantum Lagrangian is then described as

$$L_{eff}=p_r\dot{r}+p_\theta \dot{\theta }+p_\varphi \dot{\varphi }+p_\eta \dot{\eta }+B_2\dot{N}^2+\overline{𝒫}_i\dot{𝒞}^i+\overline{𝒞}_2\dot{𝒫}^2H_{tot}$$
(3.7)
where $`H_{tot}=H_m\{Q,\mathrm{\Psi }\}`$ and the terms $`B_1\dot{N}^1+\overline{𝒞}_1\dot{𝒫}^1=\{Q,\overline{𝒞}_1\dot{N}^1\}`$ have been suppressed by replacing $`\chi ^1`$ with $`\chi ^1+\dot{N}^1`$.

Now we perform path integration over the ghosts, anti-ghosts and Lagrangian multipliers $`\overline{𝒞}_1`$, $`𝒫^1`$, $`\overline{𝒫}_1`$, $`𝒞^1`$, $`B_1`$ and $`N^1`$, by using the equations of motion. This leads to the effective Lagrangian of the form

$`L_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`p_r\dot{r}+p_\theta \dot{\theta }+p_\varphi \dot{\varphi }+p_\eta \dot{\eta }+B\dot{N}+\overline{𝒫}\dot{𝒞}+\overline{𝒞}\dot{𝒫}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_r+p_\eta )^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_\theta ^2}{2m(r\eta )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_\varphi ^2}{2m(b+(r\eta )\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}}`$ (3.8)
$`+(p_r+p_\eta )N+Bp_r+\overline{𝒫}𝒫`$
with the redefinitions: $`N=N^2`$, $`B=B_2`$, $`\overline{𝒞}=\overline{𝒞}_2`$, $`𝒞=𝒞^2`$, $`\overline{𝒫}=\overline{𝒫}_2`$, $`𝒫=𝒫_2`$.

After performing the routine variation procedure and identifying $`N=B\dot{\eta }`$ we arrive at the effective Lagrangian of the form

$$L_{eff}=L_0+L_{WZ}+L_{gh},$$
(3.9)
where $`L_0`$ is given by (2.1) and $`L_{WZ}`$ and $`L_{gh}`$ are given by

$`L_{WZ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\dot{\eta }(\dot{\eta }2\dot{r})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\eta (\eta 2r)\dot{\theta }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\eta \mathrm{sin}\theta (\eta \mathrm{sin}\theta 2b2r\mathrm{sin}\theta )\dot{\varphi }^2`$
$`L_{gh}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{B}\dot{\eta }+\dot{\overline{𝒞}}\dot{𝒞}.`$ (3.10)
The effective Lagrangian $`L_{eff}`$ is now invariant under the BRST-transformation

$`\delta _Br`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda 𝒞,\delta _B\theta =0,\delta _B\varphi =0,\delta _B\eta =\lambda 𝒞,`$
$`\delta _B\overline{𝒞}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda B,\delta _B𝒞=0,\delta _BB=0.`$ (3.11)
## IV Energy spectrum and particle dynamics

Now, in order to investigate the energy spectrum of the free particle system on a torus, we impose the first-class constraints (2.14) on the first-class Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0`$ in (2.15) to yield

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_0=\frac{p_\theta ^2}{2ma^2}+\frac{p_\varphi ^2}{2m(b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}.$$
(4.1)
Since the free particle of interest is constrained to reside on the torus, we should include the geometrical effects of the target manifold of the torus whose spatial two-metric is given by

$$ds^2=a^2d\theta ^2+(b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2d\varphi ^2.$$
(4.2)
The natural choice of zweibein frame is then

$$e_\theta =\frac{1}{a}\frac{}{\theta },e_\varphi =\frac{1}{b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{}{\varphi },$$
(4.3)
to, together with the commutator relations (2.13), yield the Hamiltonian operator

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_0=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\left[\frac{1}{a^2(b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )}\frac{}{\theta }\left((b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )\frac{}{\theta }\right)+\frac{1}{(b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}\frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}\right].$$
(4.4)
Note that in the $`b0`$ limit, the Hamiltonian operator (4.4) on the torus reduces to that on a two-sphere.222The two-sphere Laplacian is given by $`\frac{1}{r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{}{\theta }(\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{}{\theta })+\frac{1}{r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}`$ in spherical coordinates and it can be rewritten as $`_i_i\frac{2x_i}{x_kx_k}_i\frac{x_ix_j}{x_kx_k}_i_j`$ in Cartesian coordinates hong00 .

Next, we consider an eigenvalue equation of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_0\psi (\theta ,\varphi )=E\psi (\theta ,\varphi ).$$
(4.5)
Firstly, for a given angle $`\theta `$, we can have a reduced Schr̈odinger equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m(b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}\frac{d^2\psi }{d\varphi ^2}=E\psi $$
(4.6)
to yield the eigenfunctions

$$\psi _l(\varphi )=\frac{e^{il\varphi }}{(2\pi )^{1/2}},$$
(4.7)
with $`l=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ and the energy spectrum of the particle zero modes

$$E_l(\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{}^2l^2}{2m(b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}.$$
(4.8)
Note that in the limit of $`ba`$, we can obtain the $`\theta `$-independent form

$$E_l=\frac{\mathrm{}^2l^2}{2I_b},$$
(4.9)
which describes the particle motion, with quantum number $`l`$, rotating on an axially circular orbit of radius $`b`$ along the $`\varphi `$-direction. Here, the moment of inertia of the particle is given by

$$I_b=mb^2,$$
(4.10)
and $`l`$ is the angular momentum quantum number of the corresponding operator $`J_\varphi `$. Note that the quantum operator $`J_\varphi `$ is defined on the two-dimensional $`x_1`$-$`x_2`$ plane to yield the quantum number $`l^2`$ of $`\stackrel{}{J}_\varphi ^2`$. Moreover, the angular momentum operator $`\stackrel{}{J}_\varphi ^2`$ produces the quantum number, instead of $`l(l+1)`$, $`l^2`$ which is a characteristic of two-dimensional rigid rotator hongann .

Secondly, for a given angle $`\varphi `$, we can find a Schr̈odinger equation of the form

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2ma^2(b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )}\frac{d}{d\theta }\left((b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )\frac{d\psi }{d\theta }\right)=E\psi .$$
(4.11)
Setting

$$\psi _n(\theta )=e^{in\theta }\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta ),$$
(4.12)
we can decompose the second-order Schr̈odinger equation (4.11) into two ordinary differential equations

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Theta }}{d\theta ^2}+\frac{a\mathrm{cos}\theta }{b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{d\mathrm{\Theta }}{d\theta }+\left(\frac{2ma^2E}{\mathrm{}^2}n^2\right)\mathrm{\Theta }=0,$$
(4.13)
and

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Theta }}{d\theta }+\frac{a\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2(b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )}\mathrm{\Theta }=0,$$
(4.14)
from which we can obtain the eigenfunctions with $`n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$

$$\psi _n(\theta )=\frac{(b^2a^2)^{1/4}}{(2\pi )^{1/2}}\frac{e^{in\theta }}{(b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{1/2}},$$
(4.15)
and the energy spectrum of the particle zero modes

$$E_n(\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\left[\frac{n^2}{a^2}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{4(b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{2a(b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )}\right].$$
(4.16)
In the limit of $`ba`$, we can obtain the eigenfunctions of the particle zero modes

$$\psi _n(\theta )=\frac{e^{in\theta }}{(2\pi )^{1/2}},$$
(4.17)
and the corresponding energy spectrum

$$E_n=\frac{\mathrm{}^2n^2}{2I_a},$$
(4.18)
where the moment of inertia $`I_a`$ of the particle is given by

$$I_a=ma^2,$$
(4.19)
and $`n`$ is the angular momentum quantum number of the corresponding operator $`J_\theta `$. Note that, on the two-dimensional cross sectional constant-$`\varphi `$ plane, the quantum operator $`J_\theta `$ is well defined to produce the quantum number $`n^2`$ of $`\stackrel{}{J}_\theta ^2`$, as mentioned in (4.9). In fact, the energy spectrum in the limit of $`ba`$ denotes the particle motion, with angular momentum quantum number $`n`$, rotating on a circular orbit of radius $`a`$ along the $`\theta `$-direction.

Thirdly, for a general case of (4.5), we again set

$$\psi _{nl}(\theta ,\varphi )=e^{i(n\theta +l\varphi )}\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta ),$$
(4.20)
to yield the first-order differential equation (4.14) and a second-order differential equation

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Theta }}{d\theta ^2}+\frac{a\mathrm{cos}\theta }{b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{d\mathrm{\Theta }}{d\theta }+\left[\frac{2ma^2E}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{a^2l^2}{(b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}n^2\right]\mathrm{\Theta }=0.$$
(4.21)
After some algebra, we can find the eigenfunctions with the quantum numbers $`n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`l=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$

$$\psi _{nl}(\theta ,\varphi )=\frac{(b^2a^2)^{1/4}}{2\pi }\frac{e^{i(n\theta +l\varphi )}}{(b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{1/2}},$$
(4.22)
and the energy spectrum of the particle zero modes

$$E_{nl}(\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\left[\frac{n^2}{a^2}+\frac{4l^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{4(b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{2a(b+a\mathrm{sin}\theta )}\right].$$
(4.23)
Note that the energy spectrum (4.23) is the most general solution to the Schrödinger equation (4.5) for the quantum Hamiltonian operator (4.4) and the corresponding eigenfunctions (4.22) satisfy the following orthogonality condition

$$_0^{2\pi }d\theta _0^{2\pi }d\varphi \psi _{nl}(\theta ,\varphi )\psi _{n^{}l^{}}(\theta ,\varphi )=\delta _{nn^{}}\delta _{ll^{}}.$$
(4.24)
In order to investigate the particle dynamics associated with the energy spectrum structure in terms of the toric geometrical parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$, we consider the simple case of $`ba`$ to arrive at the eigenfunctions

$$\psi _{nl}(\theta ,\varphi )=\frac{e^{i(n\theta +l\varphi )}}{2\pi },$$
(4.25)
and the corresponding $`\theta `$-independent energy spectrum of the particle zero modes

$$E_{nl}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}\left(\frac{n^2}{I_a}+\frac{l^2}{I_b}\right),$$
(4.26)
where $`I_a`$ and $`I_b`$ are moments of inertia defined in (4.19) and (4.10), respectively. Note that in the case of $`(n,l)=(0,l)`$ the energy spectrum (4.26) is reduced to that of (4.9), while in the case of $`(n,l)=(n,0)`$ to that of (4.18). In the case of the angular momentum quantum numbers $`(n,l)`$ associated with the operators $`J_\theta `$ and $`J_\varphi `$ discussed above, the energy spectrum (4.26) describes the particle motion, rotating on a helix orbit of radius $`a`$ along the $`\theta `$-direction and pointing toward the $`\varphi `$-direction of the torus of axial radius $`b`$.

## V Symplectic structures

In this section, we show that the Dirac brackets obtained in the previous section are in full agreement with those in the symplectic approach faddeev88  to our second-class system. We start with considering the symplectic analogue of the conventional Dirac approach. The master Lagrangian given by $`L_0`$ in (2.1) is of the form

$$L^{(0)}=a_\alpha ^{(0)}\dot{\xi }^{(0)\alpha }V^{(0)}$$
(5.1)
where

$$\xi ^{(0)\alpha }=(\theta ,p_\theta ,\varphi ,p_\varphi ,p_r),a_\alpha ^{(0)}=(p_\theta ,0,p_\varphi ,0,0),$$
(5.2)
and $`V^{(0)}`$ is given by $`H_0`$ in (2.7). The Euler-Lagrange equations then read

$$f_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)}\dot{\xi }^{(0)\beta }=K_\alpha ^{(0)},$$
(5.3)
where $`f_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)}`$ is the (pre-)symplectic form

$$f_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)}=\frac{a_\beta ^{(0)}}{\xi ^{(0)\alpha }}\frac{a_\alpha ^{(0)}}{\xi ^{(0)\beta }},$$
(5.4)
and $`K_\alpha ^{(0)}`$ is given by

$$K_\alpha ^{(0)}=\frac{V^{(0)}}{\xi ^{(0)\alpha }}$$
(5.5)
Explicitly we obtain

$$f^{(0)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),K^{(0)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{p_\varphi ^2r\mathrm{cos}\theta }{m(b+r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^3}\\ \frac{p_\theta }{mr^2}\\ 0\\ \frac{p_\varphi }{m(b+r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}\\ \frac{p_r}{m}\end{array}\right).$$
(5.6)
It is evident that since $`\mathrm{det}f^{(0)}=0`$, the matrix $`f^{(0)}`$ is not invertible. In fact the rank of this matrix is $`4`$, so that there exists infinity of zero-generation (left) zero mode $`\nu _\alpha ^{(0)}`$ as follows

$$\nu ^{(0)T}=(0,0,0,0,1),$$
(5.7)
where the superscript $`T`$ stands for transpose. Correspondingly, we have an infinity of zero-generation constraint

$$\nu _\alpha ^{(0)T}\frac{V^{(0)}}{\xi ^{(0)\alpha }}=0$$
(5.8)
which leads to the constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=p_r`$ in (2.9). Our new set of first-generation dynamical variables are then given by

$$\xi ^{(1)\alpha }=(\theta ,p_\theta ,\varphi ,p_\varphi ,p_r,\rho ),$$
(5.9)
and the first-generation Lagrangian takes the form

$$L^{(1)}=a_\alpha ^{(1)}\dot{\xi }^{(1)\alpha }V^{(1)}$$
(5.10)
where

$$a_\alpha ^{(1)}=(p_\theta ,0,p_\varphi ,0,0,\mathrm{\Omega }_2),$$
(5.11)
and

$$V^{(1)}=\frac{p_\theta ^2}{2mr^2}+\frac{p_\varphi ^2}{2m(b+r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}.$$
(5.12)
The Euler-Lagrange equations now takes the form

$$f_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)}\dot{\xi }^{(1)\beta }=K_\alpha ^{(1)},$$
(5.13)
where the first-generation symplectic form $`f_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)}`$ is given by

$$f_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)}=\frac{a_\beta ^{(1)}}{\xi ^{(1)\alpha }}\frac{a_\alpha ^{(1)}}{\xi ^{(1)\beta }},$$
(5.14)
and $`K_\alpha ^{(1)}`$ is given by

$$K_\alpha ^{(1)}=\frac{V^{(1)}}{\xi ^{(1)\alpha }}.$$
(5.15)
We then obtain explicitly

$$f^{(1)}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),K^{(1)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{p_\varphi ^2r\mathrm{cos}\theta }{m(b+r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^3}\\ \frac{p_\theta }{mr^2}\\ 0\\ \frac{p_\varphi }{m(b+r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right).$$
(5.16)
Moreover, the inverse $`f_1^{(1)}`$ of the matrix $`f^{(1)}`$ is given by

$$f_1^{(1)}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(5.17)
Now, let $`F`$ and $`G`$ be functions of the dynamical variables $`\xi ^{(1)\alpha }`$. We can then define generalized symplectic structures as

$$\{F,G\}^{}=\frac{F}{\xi ^{(1)\alpha }}f_1^{(1)\alpha \beta }\frac{G}{\xi ^{(1)\beta }}.$$
(5.18)
In particular, we have the following symplectic structures

$$\{\xi ^{(1)\alpha },\xi ^{(1)\beta }\}^{}=f_1^{(1)\alpha \beta },$$
(5.19)
to yield

$$\{\theta ,p_\theta \}^{}=1,\{\varphi ,p_\varphi \}^{}=1,\{\rho ,p_r\}^{}=0.$$
(5.20)
Note that, with the identification $`\rho =r`$, the symplectic brackets in (5.20) reproduce the Dirac brackets in (2.12). Moreover, together with the matrices (5.16), the Euler-Lagrange equations (5.13) reconstruct the canonical momenta (2.8), to yield

$$\dot{p}_\theta =\frac{p_\varphi ^2r\mathrm{cos}\theta }{m(b+r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^3}=mr(b+r\mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta \dot{\varphi }^2,\dot{p}_\varphi =0$$
(5.21)
attainable also from the variations of the Lagrangian (2.1) with respect to the coordinates $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$, and the consistency conditions of the constraints associated with the coordinate $`r=\rho `$

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1=0,\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2=0.$$
(5.22)
## VI Conclusion

In conclusion, we have constructed a first-class Hamiltonian by exploiting the Stückelberg coordinates associated with the geometrical constraints imposed on the torus. Subsequently, in the BFV scheme we have obtained the BRST-invariant gauge fixed Lagrangian including the ghosts and anti-ghosts, and the BRST transformation rules under which the effective Lagrangian is invariant. We have also discussed the particle dynamics by constructing the spectrum of the free particle system on the torus. The symplectic structures involved in the system on the torus were also investigated to yield the consistency with the Dirac analysis for the second-class constraints. It would be interesting to study a field theoretic extension of this work with toric geometric constraints.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to acknowledge financial support in part from the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation grant R01-2000-00015.


format: text

text:
# Dynamical scenario for nonextensive statistical mechanics

## 1 INTRODUCTION

There is no reasonable doubt that it was, at least intuitively, neat and clear for Ludwig Boltzmann and for Albert Einstein  that statistical mechanics descends, in one way or another, from microscopic dynamics. It should be so for all essential concepts of the theory, including the celebrated expression for the entropy, namely (written here for a discrete case)

$$S_{BG}=k\underset{i=1}{\overset{W}{}}p_i\mathrm{ln}p_i,$$
(1)
from now on referred to as the Boltzmann-Gibbs (BG) entropy. However, and interestingly enough, it is until now unknown how to start from say Newton’s law $`\stackrel{}{F}=m\stackrel{}{a}`$ and end up with this remarkable functional form and its associated variational principle. It is Boltzmann’s magnificent intuition which made him to propose this specific microscopic expression for Clausius’ thermodynamic entropy. Expression which is totally consistent with Newton’s law, although rigorously speaking we still do not know why.

If such is the situation for $`S_{BG}`$, it is clear that the situation has to be even more intriguing – to say the least! – for any generalization of $`S_{BG}`$, such as

$$S_q=k\frac{1_{i=1}^Wp_i^q}{q1}(q;S_1=S_{BG}).$$
(2)
Even if we do not yet know how $`S_{BG}`$ descends from dynamics and what restrictive premises the microscopic dynamics must satisfy, it has been profusely verified that $`S_{BG}`$ is the natural entropic form everytime we have nonintegrable and sufficiently chaotic dynamics (i.e., positive Lyapunov exponents), known to yield quick mixing and eventually ergodicity in phase space. A natural question arises: what happens if the system is nonintegrable but all Lyapunov exponents vanish? More precisely, what happens when the sensitivity to the initial conditions diverges less than exponentially? It seems plausible to imagine that the answer depends on how the sensitivity diverges asymptotically, a power-law?, a slow logarithmic divergence?, some other type? The case that we focus on in the present paper, and generically in nonextensive statistical mechanics, is the ubiquitous power-law. It is for such dynamics that one imagines that $`S_q`$ would be the appropriate physical entropy to be used for various purposes, including the bridging to thermodynamics. Furthermore, one imagines that the appropriate value of the entropic index $`q`$ should reflect the exponent of the power-law, thus constituting the basis for universality classes of nonextensivity.

## 2 A POSSIBLE TRIANGLE FOR THE ENTROPIC INDEX $`q`$

Although most of the notions that we shall use here occur in all types of dynamics, including quantum ones, we shall focus on classical systems for simplicity.

### 2.1 SENSITIVITY TO THE INITIAL CONDITIONS

Let us start with the notion of sensitivity to the initial conditions. At the present point it is enough, as an illustration, to consider a one-dimensional nonlinear dynamical system (e.g., an unimodal map like the logistic one) characterized by $`x(t)`$. We define the sensitivity (to the initial conditions) $`\xi lim_{\mathrm{\Delta }x(0)0}\mathrm{\Delta }x(t)/\mathrm{\Delta }x(0)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }x(t)x(t)x^{}(t)`$ denotes the difference between two trajectories $`x(t)`$ and $`x^{}(t)`$ that are initially close to each other. The following differential equation is typically satisfied:

$$\frac{d\xi }{dt}=\lambda _1\xi ,$$
(3)
where $`\lambda _1`$ is the Lyapunov exponent (or essentially the largest one in more general situations). The solution of course is

$$\xi (t)=e^{\lambda _1t},$$
(4)
hence $`\mathrm{ln}\xi t`$ . This solution generically holds everytime $`\lambda _10`$. But if we have $`\lambda _1=0`$ (referred to as weak chaos if there is mixing, and integrability otherwise), we expect the adequate differential equation to typically be the following generalization of Eq. (3):

$$\frac{d\xi }{dt}=\lambda _{q_{sen}}\xi ^{q_{sen}},$$
(5)
where sen stands for sensitivity. Its solution is given by

$$\xi (t)=e_{q_{sen}}^{\lambda _{q_{sen}}t},$$
(6)
hence $`\mathrm{ln}_{q_{sen}}\xi t`$ , with

$$e_q^x[1+(1q)x]^{1/(1q)}(e_1^x=e^x),$$
(7)
and

$$\mathrm{ln}_qx\frac{x^{1q}1}{1q}(\mathrm{ln}_1x=\mathrm{ln}x).$$
(8)
(We remind that $`e_q^x`$ is always real and nonnegative; for $`q<1`$, it vanishes for all values of $`x`$ such that $`1+(1q)x0`$).

If $`\lambda _1=0`$ and, in spite of that, there is mixing in the full dynamical space of the system, we typically expect $`q_{sen}<1`$ and $`\lambda _{q_{sen}}>0`$; if there is no mixing, we typically expect $`q_{sen}>1`$ and $`\lambda _{q_{sen}}<0`$. It is of course possible in even more pathological cases (and therefore more rare in natural or artificial systems) that both $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _{q_{sen}}`$ vanish, but such cases are out of the scope of the present discussion, centered on power-laws (and not on even weaker behaviors such as the logarithmic ones).

It is by now well known that an illustration of the situation we are focusing on here is provided by the edge of chaos of the logistic map: $`q_{sen}=0.2445\mathrm{}`$ and $`\lambda _{q_{sen}}=1/(1q_{sen})=1.3236\mathrm{}`$ . Many other paradigmatic dynamical systems are known or expected to also enter, in one way or another, into the same category. This is the case of globally coupled standard maps close to integrability ( and references therein) or long-range-interacting many-body Hamiltonian systems ( and references therein).

Let us finally mention that, at least for simple one-dimensional maps, $`q_{sen}`$ also enters prominently in basic properties such as the entropy production per unit time  (essentially the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy rate), and the values at which the multifractal function (associated with the edge of chaos) may vanish .

### 2.2 RELAXATION

We define the quantity

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(t)\frac{𝕆(t)𝕆(\mathrm{})}{𝕆(0)𝕆(\mathrm{})},$$
(9)
where $`𝕆`$ is a macroscopic observable relaxing towards its value at a stationary state (thermal equilibrium, or some other). The associated differential equation very frequently is

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{dt}=\frac{1}{\tau _1}\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(10)
$`\tau _1>0`$ being the relaxation time. The solution of this equation is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(t)=e^{t/\tau _1}.$$
(11)
The quantity $`\tau _1`$ is in principle expected to depend on the observable $`𝕆`$. However, in all generic cases one expects (according to Krylov’s classical remarks) $`1/\tau _1\lambda _1`$ if $`\lambda _1>0`$. This is quite natural since the relaxation of a macroscopic quantity reflects nothing but the exploration that the system makes of its full dynamical space in its search of a possible stationary state (given some class of initial conditions), and this occurs at a rythm dictated by the Lyapunov exponent $`\lambda _1`$ (or, in general, by the full Lyapunov spectrum). In particular, if $`\lambda _1`$ (or the maximal Lyapunov exponent) vanishes, we expect $`\tau _1`$ to diverge, thus making Eq. (11) inappropriate. It is quite plausible that, in such situation, Eq. (10) becomes generalized into

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{dt}=\frac{1}{\tau _{q_{rel}}}\mathrm{\Omega }^{q_{rel}}$$
(12)
where rel stands for relaxation. The solution is of course given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(t)=e_{q_{rel}}^{t/\tau _{q_{rel}}}(\tau _{q_{rel}}>0)$$
(13)
being typically $`q_{rel}>1`$. It could well happen that $`q_{rel}>1`$ depends on the specific observable $`𝕆`$ we might be interested in, but even if such is the case, we expect all possible $`q_{rel}`$’s to be simply inter-related. Moreover, we expect them to be essentially characterized by the speed at which the nonlinear dynamics makes the system to approach its stable (or metastable) stationary (or quasistationary) state, given the class of initial conditions within which the system has been started. More specifically, when $`\lambda _1=0`$, we expect simple hypothesis such as ergodicity in full phase space (basic for the validity of BG statistical mechanics) to be not fulfilled. Even more, we expect (under conditions to be determined) the system to have a tendency of lengthily living in some kind of attractor or pseudo-attractor, whose Lebesgue measure in full dynamical space would typically be zero, as it is the case of (multi)fractals or scale-free networks. If we assume an ensemble whose Lebesgue measure is different from zero at $`t=0`$ inside a special region of full space, we might observe a shrinking of the Lebesgue measure as time goes on. The loss of Lebesgue measure would possibly occur through a $`q`$-exponential function whose value of $`q`$ would be noted $`q_{rel}`$. From now on, we reserve the notation $`q_{rel}`$ for the shrinking of Lebesgue measure, if such is the case. All other $`q_{rel}`$’s would be simply related to this one. Let us emphasize that the present scenario does not exclude that, at even larger times, the system escapes from this (multi)fractal “prison” and ultimately satifies ergodicity, thus making a crossover from $`q_{rel}`$ to $`q=1`$. This would in fact be the case unless some limiting situations (see ) are taken which strictly guarantee that $`\lambda _1`$ vanishes. When such escape is possible, aging phenomena might be present , aging being presumably related to a slow collective dynamics which would prepare the escape from the “prison”.

A typical illustration of the picture we have described in the present subsection is, as before, the edge of chaos of the logistic map, where it is $`q_{rel}2.4`$ . Other paradigmatic illustrations should include the systems mentioned in the previous subsection, but this remains to be verified.

Let us finally mention that, at least for simple one-dimensional maps, $`q_{rel}`$ also emerges  in basic properties such as the fractal dimension (maximum of the multifractal function) of the attractor at the edge of chaos.

### 2.3 STATIONARY STATE

Let us now address what may in some sense be considered as the most useful thermostatistical function, namely the distribution of total energies in Gibbs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-space of a thermodynamical system in contact with a canonical thermostat fixing the temperature $`T`$.

Let us first consider a Hamiltonian system whose elements interact only locally, or almost not at all (e.g., the ideal gas). A typical example of local interaction is a classical two-body (attractive) potential which has no singularity at the origin, and which asymptotically decays with distance $`r`$ as $`1/r^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha /d>1`$, where $`d`$ is the space dimension of the system; for instance, for the usual Lennard-Jones fluid, we have $`\alpha =6`$ and $`d=3`$. We know that the relevant stationary state is thermal equilibrium and that

$$p_i=\frac{e^{\beta _1E_i}}{Z_1}(\beta _11/kT;Z_1\underset{j}{}e^{\beta _1E_j}),$$
(14)
where $`\{E_i\}`$ is the set of eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian with specific boundary conditions. This celebrated distribution can be obtained through the textbook procedure which consists in optimizing $`S_{BG}`$ under the constraints $`_ip_i=1`$ and $`_ip_iE_i=U_1`$, where $`U_1`$ is the total internal energy. It seems to be realized by only a few physicists that this distribution can also be obtained, albeit without formal justification up to now, through a differential equation, namely

$$\frac{d(p_iZ_1)}{dE_i}=\beta _1(p_iZ_1).$$
(15)
The black-body radiation law was first found, and published in October 1900 , by Max Planck through an heuristic differential equation, precisely one which, with appropriate variables, contains Eq. (15) as a particular case! This is known only by those interested in the history of science. And it has not been incorporated in standard textbooks presumably because of the lack of formal justification. Nevertheless the mathematical fact is there, and in my opinion it is perhaps not a mere coincidence. Indeed, since the sensitivity to the initial conditions follows an exponential law, and the same typically does its prominent consequence namely the relaxation of macroscopic thermostatistical quantities, it cannot be a very great surprise that the same does happen to the distribution associated with the stationary state towards which the system relaxes.

For Hamiltonian systems whose elements do not interact locally but globally (e.g., the classical systems mentioned previously but with $`0\alpha /d1`$, in which case the potential is not integrable), it seems quite plausible that the Eq. (15) becomes generalized into

$$\frac{d(p_iZ_{q_{stat}})}{dE_i}=\beta _{q_{stat}}(p_iZ_{q_{stat}})^{q_{stat}},$$
(16)
where stat stands for stationary state, and $`\beta _{q_{stat}}`$ is the adequate inverse temperature (in units of $`k`$). The solution is given by

$$p_i=\frac{e_{q_{stat}}^{\beta _{q_{stat}}E_i}}{Z_{q_{stat}}}(\beta _{q_{stat}}1/kT_{stat};Z_{q_{stat}}\underset{j}{}e_{q_{stat}}^{\beta _{q_{stat}}E_j}),$$
(17)
and one typically expects $`q_{stat}>1`$. It is in fact precisely this solution which emerges  by optimizing, through conveniently written norm and energy constraints, $`S_q`$ instead of $`S_{BG}`$.

There is molecular dynamical numerical evidence  for some classical long-range-interacting many-body inertial rotators on $`d`$-dimensional lattices that they might satisfy, in some robust metastable states in the presence of a thermostat, the total energy distribution indicated in Eq. (17). But, even at the numerical level, the problem is uneasy, though not impossible, to study. This is the subject of ongoing efforts. The strategy which is followed is to consider an isolated system of $`N`$ rotators at a fixed total energy. Then consider once for ever a subset of $`M`$ rotators among the $`N`$ available. Finally, one must numerically approach the $`t\mathrm{}`$ limit of the $`M\mathrm{}`$ limit of the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit. The whole procedure must be repeated many times ($`N_{realizations}\mathrm{}`$, mathematically speaking) for realizations differing in the precise multi-particle initial conditions, always within some specific and nontrivial class of initial conditions, and then averaging the results. The distribution obtained in this manner (i.e., $`lim_t\mathrm{}lim_M\mathrm{}lim_N\mathrm{}lim_{N_{realizations}\mathrm{}}`$) is to be compared with Eq. (17).

Let us make one more remark, which concerns the distributions of momenta of these rotators. If we denote with $`(\{L_i\},\{\theta _i\})`$ the Hamiltonian associated with say planar rotators, the distribution in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-space is given by

$$p(\{L_i\},\{\theta _i\})e_{q_{stat}}^{\beta _{q_{stat}}(\{L_i\},\{\theta _i\})}.$$
(18)
Then the one-body angular momentum marginal distribution $`p(L)`$ is given by

$`p(L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle (\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=2}^NdL_i)(\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^Nd\theta _i)p(\{L_i\},\{\theta _i\})}`$ (19)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle (\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=2}^NdL_i)(\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^Nd\theta _i)e_{q_{stat}}^{\beta _{q_{stat}}(\{L_i\},\{\theta _i\})}}.`$
We do not yet know what is the result for this distribution but it could also be a $`q_L`$-exponential in $`L^2`$ with $`q_L>1`$ related to $`q_{stat}`$ is some still unknown manner. One expects (essentially because the integral of a $`q`$-exponential is another $`q`$-exponential) the index $`q_L`$ to either coincide with $`q_{stat}`$ or be a simple function of it (see ). In any case, the available numerical evidence is not inconsistent with such posibilities ( and references therein). See, for instance, Fig. 1 (from ), where for the first time the momentum distribution is calculated (through molecular dynamics) for a system which is sensibly closer to a canonical ensemble (contact with a large thermostat) than the microcanonical ensemble considered up to now in the literature for such systems.

## 3 FINAL REMARKS

The $`q`$-indices discussed in Section 2 and their possible interconnections are schematically represented in Fig. 2. It is our scenario that they are different “faces” of the same basic phenomenon, namely how the system “likes” to evolve and mix in part or all of its full phase space (Gibbs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-space for Hamiltonian systems) given its initial conditions. If the system is strongly chaotic (i.e., positive Lyapunov exponents), essentially satisfying Boltzmann’s “molecular chaos hypothesis”, then the system will be mixing and ergodic allover the entire phase space. BG statistical mechanics is expected to appropriately describe the thermal statistics of the system, the associated microscopic expression for the entropy undoubtedly being $`S_{BG}`$. But if the system is only weakly chaotic (i.e., zero Lyapunov exponents, but not integrable), then the occupancy of phase space might be much more complex everytime the system is started within specific nonzero-Lebesgue-measure regions of phase space. The region of phase space where the system may lengthily evolve before eventually occupying the entire space might have a (multi)fractal or hierarchical structure of the type currently referred to as scale-free network (see  and references therein). As long as the system remains in that region, its thermostatistics might be adequately be described within nonextensive statistical mechanics, the associated microscopic expression for the thermodynamic entropy presumably being $`S_q`$ with a specific value of $`q`$. During the metastable or quasi-stationary state we would then have $`(q_{sen},q_{rel},q_{stat})(1,1,1)`$, and at later times (in many cases, infinitely later!) a crossover would occur to $`q_{stat}=q_{rel}=q_{sen}=1`$. This confluence onto a single value of $`q`$ for BG statistics might be at the origin of occasional confusion within the interested community. Indeed, three essentially different (though related) concepts just happen to coincide within the BG formalism.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is a deep pleasure to thank the creators and organizers of this wonderful meeting in Cagliari (Villasimius) where we all received exceptionally warm hospitality. Although they were many and very valuable, it is for me but a matter of elementary justice to gratefully name those who contributed the most: P. Quarati, G. Kaniadakis, A. Rapisarda, M. Lissia and E.G.D. Cohen.

Partial support by FAPERJ, CNPq and PRONEX (Brazilian agencies) is gratefully acknowledged.