format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent years the M5-brane in $`D=11`$ has acquired a protagonist role in understanding the duality relations in the M-theory framework. The degrees of freedom of 6d world volume theory of the M5-brane are associated with the super-symmetric tensor multiplet $`N=(2,0)`$. This multiplet contains a 2-form gauge field $`B_{MN}`$ with a self-dual field strength, five scalars and two chiral spinors. The presence of this chiral gauge field was an obstacle to the formulation of a covariant world volume M5-brane action. P. Pasti, D. Sorokin and M.Tonin in 1997  found a way of dealing with this obstacle using the auxiliary scalar field approach, thus allowing the formulation of a covariant super-5-brane action with its usual $`\kappa `$-invariance . However, in order to obtain an operatorial or functional integral quantum formulation of the theory, for example to analyze the quantum stability properties of the theory, it seems necessary to eliminate by partial gauge fixing the auxiliary scalar field of the PST approach, since it is present in the denominator of the Lagrangian. The covariant field equations for the super $`M5`$-brane were first obtained in ,  and  using the superembedding approach.

An action for the M5-brane was independently formulated in a non manifestly covariant way in , it corresponds to a gauge fixed version of the covariant proposal. There are two partial gauge fixing conditions that naturally eliminate off the auxiliary scalar field of the PST approach. One of them corresponds to fixing the scalar field as the world volume time and the other as a local world volume spatial coordinate.The latest corresponds to the formulation in . In the first case the action is first-order in time derivatives of the antisymmetric field and in the second one is higher order in time derivatives, moreover it is non polinomial in the dependence of the time derivatives of the antisymmetric field. The first case, although has second class constraints, allows a direct canonical analysis. We remark that the PST formulation as well as the formulation in  assume the existence of the inverse of the induced metric.

The canonical Hamiltonian for the 5-brane was first obtained in ,  and also discussed in , however in order to analyze the stability properties of the 5-brane and to compare them with the $`D=11`$ supermembrane theory it is relevant to go one step further, to include also in the analysis the configurations with zero determinant of the induced metric since as we will show they are physical configurations of the theory, and study then the physical Hamiltonian. That is, the Hamiltonian describing the dynamics of the physical degrees of freedom once the gauge ones have been eliminated by an admissible gauge fixing procedure.

When the theory is reduced to the subspace of solutions of the field equations for which the induced metric is flat, the Lagrangian of the 5-brane reduces to the one in  whose canonical analysis was obtained in . An interesting feature of  was that the second class constraints of the original formulation were eliminated giving rise to a canonical Lagrangian with first class constraints only. In this case, its double dimensional reduction yield a canonical formulation allowing two covariant gauge fixing procedures, one of them gives the Hamiltonian formulation of the 4-brane and the other one its dual in terms of the antisymmetric field. The analysis was performed even though the dependence on the time derivatives of the antisymmetric field is non polinomial. The resulting Hamiltonians contain in both cases the typical Born-Infeld structure for the field strength of the gauge vector field and antisymmetric one.

In this work we give first a complete analysis of the canonical structure of the bosonic sector of the 5-brane. We start from the PST action and consider the partial gauge fixing where the scalar field is fixed as the world volume time. The canonical formulation of the $`M5`$-brane turns out to be quadratic in the dependence on the antisymmetric field, and has second class constraints together with the first class ones which generates the symmetries of the theory. The Hamiltonian in  reduces to the one we obtain once their constraints are properly combined.

We remove the second class constraints preserving the locality of the field theory and ending up with a master canonical action which only contains first class constraints and is well defined even for singular induced metrics. We refer as singular configurations the ones for which the determinant of the spatial part of the induced metric is zero at some point or neighborhood of the world volume. The algebra of the 6 dimensional diffeomorphisms generated by the first class constraints is explicitly given. It is an open algebra.

This is the first step in the construction of an unconstrained extended phase where a realization of the nilpotent BRST charge may be possible. The BRST charge is a fundamental geometrical object in the formulation of the quantum field theory associated to the canonical Lagrangian. It may also be an important geometrical object in the construction of the Seiberg-Witten map  that relates the 5-brane theory formulated in terms of a commutative geometry to a formulation in terms of an associated noncommutative one. The Seiberg-Witten map is a one to one correspondence between gauge equivalent classes, which correspond to BRST equivalence classes in the extended phase space. In particular, this implies that the cohomology classes of the BRST operators in the commutative realization and in the non commutative one are in one to one correspondence. We construct the nilpotent BRST charge of the theory and its BRST invariant effective theory. The construction involves several steps beyond the standard construction for a closed algebra. In fact, one has to introduce the higher order structure functions of the open algebra. We obtain its physical Hamiltonian and analyze its stability properties remarking that although the Hamiltonian is quadratic on the dependence on the antisymmetric field, its reduction to a flat induced metric gives the Born-Infeld type of Hamiltonian. The improvement is important when the operatorial formulation of the BRST invariant effective action is considered.

Finally, by studying the algebra of diffeomorphisms we find the most general structure for the Hamiltonian constraint in terms of the membrane maps and the antisymmetric field. The corresponding canonical Hamiltonian describe field theories which are invariant under diffeomorphisms over a 6 dimensional world volume with a chiral gauge field. The unique Hamiltonian constraint with quadratic dependence on the antisymmetric field corresponds to the M5-brane. We also identify the constraint associated to the bosonic M5-brane action upgraded with a cosmological term,it involves a Born-Infeld type of term. From the algebraic point of view, the Hamiltonian constraint for the M5-brane is characterized by being the unique one which is polinomial in its dependence on the field strength of the antisymmetric field and is well defined even for singular induced metrics. The BRST invariant action, that we will construct, is characterized also by the same property. Its Lagrangian density is well behaved even for singular configurations of the induced metric. Hence, singular configurations of the metric are allowed as physical configurations. In distinction, the PST covariant action, as well as the one in , assume the existence of the inverse of the induced metric at any point of the world volume. In the case of the D=11 Supermembrane, the singular configurations are also physical configurations. This has important consequences with respect to the quantum properties of the theory. In fact, the existence of these configurations together with the supersymmetry render the spectrum continuous from zero to infinite. They are also related to the topology changes on the embedded surface in the target space, without changing the energy of the supermembrane. It is thus very important to take them into account in any analysis of the theory.

Another consequence of the existence of singular configurations is that the static “gauge” is not a correct gauge fixing of the theory, since giving a singular configuration one cannot gauge transform it to a non singular one (in the static gauge the spatial part of the induced metric is always non singular). If one restricts the theory to the space of nontrivial higher order bundles  or equivalent to non trivial wrapping of the 5-brane on the target space, then the singular configurations are avoided and it becomes a correct gauge fixing condition. However the quantum stability analysis of the theory must include all canonical admissible configurations and it is in that case that the static gauge is not allowed. In distinction the light cone gauge is always an admissible gauge. In fact, even the singular configurations can be gauged to it, and of course they remain to be singular.

## 2 Canonical analysis of the bosonic 5-brane action

We start from the PST action for the M5-brane and consider the gauge in which the scalar field is proportional to the world volume time. This gauge fixing, associated to the gauge symmetry of the auxiliar scalar field, may be implemented directly into the action, since the Fadeev-Popov procedure gives a constant contribution to the measure of the functional integral. We obtain the following Lagrangian density

$$L=2\sqrt{det\left(G_{MN}+G_{M\rho }G_{N\lambda }{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\rho \lambda }\sqrt{G_0}\right)}+\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\mu \nu }_0B_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{4}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \lambda \sigma }\frac{G^{0\rho }}{G^{00}}{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\lambda \sigma }$$
(1)
Where $`B`$ denotes the antisymmetric gauge field and $`H`$ is the self-dual field strength $`H=dB`$. The 6 dimensional world volume indices are denoted by $`M,N=0,1,\mathrm{},5`$ while the spatial ones by $`\mu \nu =1,\mathrm{},5`$. $`G_{MN}`$ in terms of the 5-brane maps $`X^a`$ is given by the induced expression $`G_{MN}=_MX^a_NX_a`$, where $`a`$ denotes the $`D=11`$ Minkowski indices. In the spatial 5-dimensional world volume we denote:

$$H_{\rho \lambda \sigma }=_\rho B_{\lambda \sigma }+_\sigma B_{\rho \lambda }+_\lambda B_{\sigma \rho }$$
(2)
$${}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{6}ϵ^{\mu \nu \gamma \delta \lambda }H_{\gamma \delta \lambda }$$
(3)
Where $`{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\mu \nu }`$ is a contravariant density. In order to analyze the Hamiltonian structure of this action it is convenient to introduce the ADM parametrization of the metric

$`G_{00}`$ $``$ $`(n^2N_\lambda N^\lambda )=\dot{X}^a\dot{X}_a`$ (4)
$`G_{0\mu }`$ $``$ $`N_\mu =\dot{X}^a_\mu X_a`$ (5)
$`G_{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`g_{\mu \nu }=_\mu X^a_\nu X_a`$ (6)
$`N^\mu `$ $``$ $`g^{\mu \nu }N_\nu ,`$ (7)
$`G^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2}}),`$ (8)
$`G^{0\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^\mu }{n^2}},`$ (9)
$`G^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{N^\mu N^\nu }{n^2}},`$ (10)
$`det(G_{MN})`$ $`=`$ $`n^2det(g_{\mu \nu }).`$ (11)
They allow us to rewrite (1) in the form

$$L=2n\sqrt{gM}\frac{1}{4}N^\rho \widehat{V}_\rho +\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\mu \nu }_0B_{\mu \nu }$$
(12)
where

$`g`$ $`=`$ $`detg_{\mu \nu }`$ (13)
$`M`$ $``$ $`1+\widehat{y}+\widehat{z}`$ (14)
$`\widehat{y}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^1{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{}H_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ (15)
$`\widehat{z}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}g^1g^{\mu \nu }\widehat{V}_\mu \widehat{V}_\nu `$ (16)
$`\widehat{V}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma \delta }{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\gamma \delta }`$ (17)
The spatial world volume indices are raised and lowered with the induced metric, the need of using the inverse of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ will be later on relaxed. The term $`gM`$ is precisely

$$det(g_{\mu \nu }+g^{1/2}{}_{}{}^{}H_{\mu \nu }^{})=gM$$
(18)
The conjugate momenta to $`X^a`$ may be directly evaluated. It is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_a=2\frac{g^{1/2}}{n}(\dot{X}_a+N^\lambda _\lambda X_a)M^{1/2}\frac{1}{4}\widehat{V}^\rho _\rho X_a$$
(19)
We can guess that the diffeomorphisms constraints have a similar diffeomorphisms constraints structure as in string and membrane theory. We finally obtain

$`\widehat{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^2+g(2\widehat{y}+2)=0`$ (20)
$`\widehat{\varphi }_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_a_\alpha X^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{V}_\alpha =0`$ (21)
The conjugate momenta to $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ will be denoted $`P^{\mu \nu }`$ and satisfies the constraint

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu }=P^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\mu \nu }=0$$
(22)
The standard canonical analysis shows that (20), (21) and (22) are the only constraints of the theory and they are a mixture of first and second class constraints. The canonical Hamiltonian is a linear combination of these constraints

$$_c=\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{\varphi }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha \widehat{\varphi }_\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu }$$
(23)
We will now consider a more general canonical formulation with first class constraints only, which under partial gauge fixing reduces to (23). Such a formulation can be obtained by several approaches. Following , we deduce from (22)the first class constraints for the antisymmetric field

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{5i}`$ $`=`$ $`P^{5i}{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{5i}=0`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^j`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu P^{\mu j}=0,i=1,2,3,4.`$ (25)
The diffeomorphisms constraints must be modified in order to obtain a complete set of first class constraints and we propose the following structure:

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^2+g(2y+2)=0`$ (26)
$`\varphi _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_a_\alpha X^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}V_\alpha =0`$ (27)
where

$`y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}g^1(P^{\alpha \beta }+{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\alpha \beta })(P_{\alpha \beta }+{}_{}{}^{}H_{\alpha \beta }^{})`$ (28)
$`V_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(P^{\alpha \beta }+{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\alpha \beta })(P^{\gamma \delta }+{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\gamma \delta })`$ (29)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{5i}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^i`$ commute between themselves and with $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi _\alpha `$. The simplectic space of the antisymmetric field and its conjugate momenta has been decomposed in terms of the local commuting coordinates

$$P^{\mu \nu }+{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\mu \nu }$$

and

$$P^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\mu \nu }$$

with Poisson brackets

$$\{P^{\mu \nu }+{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\mu \nu },P^{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\alpha \beta }\}=0$$
(30)
the latest coordinate may be fixed by a gauge condition associated to constraints (24) and (25). The procedure to obtain (24), (25), (26) and (27) is deductive, however we have only presented the resulting expressions whose required properties may be directly checked . $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi _\alpha `$ generates the algebra of diffeomorphism on the world volume: The canonical Hamiltonian is then the linear combination of the first class constraints. We have broken even further the manifest covariance of the formulation, nevertheless we have now a polinomic formulation of the theory in terms of first class constraints only. We remark that the square root characteristic of the Born-Infeld action for the 5-brane has now disappear. These properties ensure the construction of a polinomic physical Hamiltonian and a polinomic BRST invariant formulation of the theory. We will consider both points in the following sections.

The algebra generated by the first class constraints (24), (25), (26) and (27) is given by:

$`\{\varphi _\rho ,\varphi _\mu ^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _\mu _\rho \delta +\varphi _\rho ^{}_\mu \delta (_\gamma P^{\gamma \delta })l^{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{\mu \delta \rho \alpha \beta }\delta `$ (31)
$`\{\varphi _\rho ,\varphi ^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`(\varphi +\varphi ^{})_\rho \delta 4(_\lambda P^{\lambda \alpha })l_{\alpha \rho }\delta `$ (32)
$`\{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝒞^{\rho \sigma }\varphi _\rho +𝒞^{\rho \sigma }\varphi _\rho ^{})_\sigma \delta `$ (33)
where

$$𝒞^{\sigma \lambda }=4(gg^{\sigma \lambda }+g_{\alpha \beta }l^{\alpha \sigma }l^{\beta \lambda }),l^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}(P^{\alpha \beta }+{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\alpha \beta })$$
(34)
We remark that the first class constraints, as well as the structure functions of the algebra, depend only on $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and not on its inverse. This is an important difference with respect to the covariant formulation of the theory, where the metric is assumed to have an inverse. It is well known in the case of the $`D=11`$ supermembrane that the singular configurations, which in this theory are string like configurations, are responsible for the continuous spectrum of the Hamiltonian as well as for topological changes of the brane. ,  .

## 3 BRST effective action

We have succeeded in finding a formulation of the 5-brane which is polinomic on the fields and with first class constraints only. We will now construct the associated nilpotent BRST charge and the BRST invariant effective action. The BRST charge is the fundamental geometrical object in the quantum analysis of the theory and in the construction of the map relating the 5-brane formulation to a non commutative geometry.

The effective action will depend on the covariant induced metric only, and not in its inverse, so is well behaved even on singular configurations where the determinant of the induced metric becomes zero.

In order to have a realization of the generators of spatial diffeomorphisms $`\varphi _\rho `$, in the whole space of geometrical objects including the antisymmetric field and its conjugate momenta we will consider a reduction of the phase space by restricting to configurations satisfying

$$_\mu P^{\mu \nu }=0$$
(35)
We may performed this restriction starting with the whole extended phase space and imposing finally at the level of the effective action a canonical gauge fixing condition associated to (35):

$$\chi (B,P)=0$$
(36)
depending only on $`B`$ and $`P`$ fields.

Otherwise we may start restricting the phase space by conditions (35) and (36) and working out the nilpotent BRST charge on the subspace of phase space. In our case, the latest approach becomes slightly more direct. This is so because $`_\mu P^{\mu \nu }`$ commutes with all constraints of the theory and with all phase space coordinates except $`B_{\mu \nu }`$. However $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ appears in the constraints only through $`{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\alpha \beta }`$, which commutes with $`_\mu P^{\mu \nu }`$. Consequently, in the BRST construction we may work directly with Poisson brackets even so we are restricted by (35) and (36) (Dirac brackets are the same as Poisson brackets). We will follow this latest approach, for simplicity we require

$$\{\chi ,\chi ^{}\}=0$$
(37)
The algebra of diffeomorphism obtained in section §2 is an open algebra, that is, the structure functions depend on the fields. Consequently, the construction of the nilpotent BRST charges requires several additional steps beyond the standard construction for a closed algebra. They involve the higher order structure functions of the algebra. We introduce the ghosts $`C`$ and $`C^\rho `$ associated to $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi _\rho `$and its conjugate momenta $`\mu `$ and $`\mu _\rho `$ respectively. We start from the Poisson brackets

$$\{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}\}=(𝒞^{\sigma \lambda }\varphi _\sigma +𝒞^{\sigma \lambda }\varphi ^_\sigma )_\lambda \delta $$
(38)
where

$$𝒞^{\sigma \lambda }=4(gg^{\sigma \lambda }+g_{\alpha \beta }l^{\alpha \sigma }l^{\beta \lambda })$$
(39)
It is convenient to extend the other generator of diffeomorphisms $`\varphi _\rho `$ from the beginning in order to simplify the construction. We define

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho =\varphi _\rho +2\mu _\rho C+_\rho \mu C+\mu _\lambda _\rho C^\lambda +_\lambda (\mu _\rho C^\lambda )$$
(40)
We then have

$`\{\xi ^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho ,C\}`$ $`=`$ $`2\xi ^\rho _\rho C+_\rho (\xi ^\rho C)=\xi ^\rho _\rho C+_\rho \xi ^\rho C,`$ (41)
$`\{\xi ^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho ,\mu \}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^\rho _\rho \mu 2_\rho \xi ^\rho \mu `$ (42)
with the right density weights to obtain

$$\{\xi ^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho ,\mu C\}=\xi ^\rho _\rho (\mu C)_\rho \xi ^\rho (\mu C),$$
(43)
Consequently, we have

$$\{\xi ^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho ,C\varphi \}=_\rho (\xi ^\rho C\varphi )=0$$
(44)
We will drops all boundary terms, that is we will assume a closed compact spatial world volume. We also get

$$\{\xi ^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho ,C^\mu \}=\xi ^\rho _\rho C^\mu +_\rho \xi ^\mu C^\rho ,$$
(45)
since $`C^\mu `$ transforms as a contravariant vector

The introduction of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho `$ simplifies the construction since its action on any new term in the BRST charge reduces only to count weights for objects which transform under diffeomorphisms as densities.

We may start considering

$$Q=C\varphi +C^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho \mu _\sigma C_\lambda C𝒞^{\sigma \lambda }C^\rho \mu _\lambda _\rho C^\lambda +Q^H+Q^AQ^C+Q^H+Q^A$$
(46)
Where $`Q^H`$ denotes the terms involving the higher order structure functions of the diffeomorphism algebra. $`Q^A`$ denotes the contributions to $`Q`$ of the constraints associated to the antisymmetric field. It commutes with $`Q^C+Q^H`$, hence we will consider it after the complete evaluation of $`Q^C`$ and $`Q^H`$. We will systematically add the higher order terms in derivatives of $`C`$ in order to ensure the nilpotency of $`Q`$.

We get

$$\{C\varphi ,C\varphi \}=2C_\lambda C𝒞^{\rho \lambda }\varphi _\rho $$
(47)
$$2\{C^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho ,\mu _\sigma C_\lambda C𝒞^{\sigma \lambda }\}=2C_\lambda C𝒞^{\rho \lambda }\varphi _\rho 2[\mu _{\widehat{\lambda }}_\rho C^{\widehat{\lambda }}+_{\widehat{\lambda }}(\mu _\rho C^{\widehat{\lambda }})]C_\lambda C𝒞^{\rho \lambda }$$
(48)
$$2\{\mu _\sigma C_\lambda C𝒞^{\sigma \lambda },C^\rho \mu _{\widehat{\lambda }}_\rho C^{\widehat{\lambda }}\}=2C_\lambda C𝒞^{\sigma \lambda }\mu _\nu _\sigma C^\nu 2C_\lambda C𝒞^{\sigma \lambda }_\rho (C^\rho \mu _\sigma )$$
(49)
$$2\{C^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho ,C^\lambda \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\lambda \}=2C^\nu _\nu C^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho $$
(50)
$$2\{C^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho ,C^\nu \mu _\lambda _\nu C^\lambda \}=2C^\nu _\nu C^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho $$
(51)
$$2\{C^{\widehat{\nu }}\mu _{\widehat{\lambda }}_{\widehat{\nu }}C^{\widehat{\lambda }},C^\nu \mu _\lambda _\nu C^\lambda \}=0$$
(52)
All these brackets cancel between each other, which is the standard situation for a closed algebra. However, since $`𝒞^{\sigma \lambda }`$ are field dependent, we have additional contributions to the evaluation of the $`\{Q,Q\}`$.

We obtain

$$2\{C\varphi ,\mu _\sigma C_\lambda C𝒞^{\sigma \lambda }\}=2𝒞_1^{\mu \nu ,\sigma \lambda }\mu _\sigma C_\lambda C_\mu C\varphi _\nu $$
(53)
where

$$𝒞_1^{\mu \nu ,\sigma \lambda }=4(2gg^{\sigma \lambda }g^{\mu \nu }+gg^{\sigma \mu }g^{\nu \lambda }+gg^{\sigma \nu }g^{\mu \lambda }l^{\mu \sigma }l^{\nu \lambda }l^{\nu \sigma }l^{\mu \lambda })$$
(54)
The first contribution to $`Q^H`$ in then

$$Q^H=\frac{1}{2}𝒞_1^{\mu \nu ,\sigma \lambda }\mu _\nu \mu _\sigma C_\lambda C_\mu C+\mathrm{}$$
(55)
Notice that the commutator

$$\{C^\rho \mu _\beta _\rho C^\beta ,\frac{1}{2}𝒞_1^{\mu \nu ,\sigma \lambda }\mu _\nu \mu _\sigma C_\lambda C_\mu C\},$$
(56)
gives a contribution which combines with (53) to give

$$2𝒞_1^{\mu \nu ,\sigma \lambda }\mu _\sigma C_\lambda C_\mu C\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\nu $$
(57)
which is canceled by the commutator

$$2\{C^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho ,\frac{1}{2}𝒞_1^{\mu \nu ,\sigma \lambda }\mu _\nu \mu _\sigma _\lambda C_\mu CC\},$$
(58)
$`𝒞_1^{\mu \nu ,\sigma \lambda }`$ is again field dependent so there are further contributions from the commutator with $`C\varphi `$.

The next contribution is from the commutators

$$2\{C\varphi ,\frac{1}{2}𝒞_1^{\mu \nu ,\sigma \lambda }\mu _\nu \mu _\sigma _\lambda C_\mu CC\}+\{\mu _\sigma C_\lambda C𝒞^{\sigma \lambda },\mu _\sigma C_\lambda C𝒞^{\sigma \lambda }\}$$
(59)
which require the addition of a term

$$8g(\mu ^\lambda _\lambda C)^3C$$
(60)
to $`Q`$.

The commutator of $`C^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho +\mu _\lambda C^\rho _\rho C^\lambda `$ with (60)

cancels the commutators in (59). Furthermore, the following commutators

$$2\{C\varphi ,8g(\mu ^\lambda _\lambda C)^3C\}+2\{\mu _\sigma C_\lambda C𝒞^{\sigma \lambda },\frac{1}{2}𝒞_1^{\mu \nu ,\sigma \lambda }\mu _\nu \mu _\sigma C_\lambda C_\mu C\}$$
(61)
require a higher order term in $`Q`$. It is

$$10g(\mu ^\lambda _\lambda C)^4C$$
(62)
The commutator of $`C^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho +\mu _\lambda C^\rho _\rho C^\lambda `$ with (62) cancels the commutators in (61).

Finally the commutators

$$2\{C\varphi ,10g(\mu ^\lambda _\lambda C)^4C\}+\{\frac{1}{2}𝒞_1^{\mu \nu ,\sigma \lambda }\mu _\nu \mu _\sigma C_\lambda C_\mu C,\frac{1}{2}𝒞_1^{\mu \nu ,\sigma \lambda }\mu _\nu \mu _\sigma C_\lambda C_\mu C\}$$
(63)
require a final new terms in $`Q`$:

$$\{12g(\mu ^\lambda _\lambda C)^5C\}$$
(64)
The commutator of $`C^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho _\rho C^\lambda `$ with (64) cancels the commutators in (63). Finally the commutator of $`C\varphi `$ with (64) gives zero since the order in derivatives of $`C`$ is $`6`$. The nilpotency of $`Q`$ has then been obtained.

The final form of the BRST charge is thus given by

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`C\varphi +C^\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho +𝒞^{\sigma \lambda }\mu _\sigma _\lambda CC+\mu _\lambda C^\rho _\rho C^\lambda `$ (65)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒞_1^{\mu \nu ,\sigma \lambda }\mu _\sigma _\lambda C\mu _\nu _\mu CC+8g(\mu ^\lambda _\lambda C)^3C`$ (67)
$`+`$ $`10g(\mu ^\lambda _\lambda C)^4C+12g(\mu ^\lambda _\lambda C)^5C+\widehat{C}_i\widehat{\mu }^i+\widehat{C}_i(P^{5i}{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{5i})`$ (69)
Where we have also included $`Q^A`$, the contributions of the first class constraints associated to the antisymmetric field, which under assumption (35) become a reducible set.

We may now construct the BRST invariant effective action. We follow the BFV approach  , and we obtain

$`S_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^5\sigma d\tau [\mu \dot{C}+\mu _\rho \dot{C}^\rho +P^{\mu \nu }\dot{B}_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Pi }_a\dot{X}^a+\widehat{\mu }^i\dot{\widehat{C}}_i+\widehat{\mu }\dot{\widehat{C}}+\widehat{\delta }(\lambda \mu +\lambda ^\rho \mu _\rho +\widehat{\lambda }_i\widehat{\mu }^i+\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{\mu })`$ (70)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{\delta }(\overline{C}\chi +\overline{C}_\rho \chi ^\rho +\overline{\widehat{C}}^i\widehat{\chi }_i+\overline{\widehat{C}}_1\chi _1+\overline{C}_2\chi _2+\overline{C}_3\chi _3+\overline{C}_4\chi _4)]`$ (71)
Where $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda _\rho `$ are the Lagrange multipliers associated to the diffeomorphisms constraints while $`\widehat{\lambda }_i`$ is associated to the constraint on the antisymmetric field. $`\chi `$, $`\chi ^\rho `$ and $`\widehat{\chi }_i`$ are the associated gauge fixing functions. $`\chi _1`$, $`\chi _2`$, $`\chi _3`$ and $`\chi _4`$ are the gauge fixing associated to the reducibility of the constraints on the antisymmetric field. We take the following gauge fixing functions:

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{W}}}`$ (72)
$`\chi ^\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^\rho `$ (73)
$`\widehat{\chi }_i`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\lambda }_i`$ (74)
Where we have introduced a non singular metric over the spatial world volume. This is so, because $`\lambda `$ transforms as a density under diffeomorphisms. In some particular cases we may take $`W=1`$. The introduction of this metric occurs in a similar way as for the $`D=11`$ supermembrane, through the gauge fixing procedure.

$`\chi _1`$, $`\chi _2`$, $`\chi _3`$ and $`\chi _4`$ fix the longitudinal parts, with respect to the covariant derivative constructed with the metric that has been introduced, of $`\widehat{C}^i`$, $`\overline{\widehat{C}}_i`$, $`\widehat{B}_i`$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }_i`$, where $`\widehat{\delta }\overline{\widehat{C}}_i=\widehat{B}_i`$, $`\widehat{\delta }`$ denotes the BRST transformation. We refer to  for details of the construction.

We may now integrate out, or eliminate from the field equations, the auxiliary field. We obtain finally:

$$S_{eff}=d^5\sigma 𝑑\tau [\mu \dot{C}+\mu _\rho \dot{C}^\rho +P^{\mu \nu }\dot{B}_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Pi }_a\dot{X}^a+\widehat{\mu }^i\dot{\widehat{C}}_i+\widehat{\mu }\dot{\widehat{C}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{W}}\widehat{\delta }\mu ]$$
(75)
where $`\widehat{\delta }\mu `$ is the BRST transformed of $`\mu `$.

We notice that in the construction

$$\{Q,Q^{}\}_𝒟=\{Q,Q^{}\}=0$$
(76)
Where the first bracket is a Dirac bracket, while the second one is a Poisson bracket. Moreover the Dirac bracket of $`Q`$ with any coordinate of the phase space, excluding $`B_{\mu \nu }`$, is the same as its Poisson bracket. However the Dirac bracket of $`Q`$ with $`P^{\mu \nu }\dot{B}_{\mu \nu }`$ is the same as its Poisson bracket, in the subspace (35). Consequently the effective action is BRST invariant, since its kinetic term transform as

$$\widehat{\delta }S_{eff}=d^5\sigma 𝑑\tau \widehat{\delta }[\mu \dot{C}+\mu _\rho \dot{C}^\rho +P^{\mu \nu }\dot{B}_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Pi }_a\dot{X}^a+\widehat{\mu }^i\dot{\widehat{C}}_i+\widehat{\mu }\dot{\widehat{C}}]=𝑑\tau \dot{Q}=0$$
(77)
provided initial and final conditions on the ghost fields are imposed  , as usual.

We notice that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{W}}}\widehat{\delta }\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{W}}}(\varphi +C^{\sigma \lambda }\mu _\sigma _\lambda C{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_1^{\mu \nu ,\sigma \lambda }\mu _\sigma _\lambda C\mu _\nu _\mu C+8g(\mu ^\lambda _\lambda C)^3`$ (78)
$`+`$ $`10g(\mu ^\lambda _\lambda C)^4+12g(\mu ^\lambda _\lambda C)^5)`$ (80)
is not only manifestly BRST invariant, but also well behaved even on singular configurations of the induced metric, where its determinant is zero, in spite of the fact that $`\mu ^\lambda =g^{\lambda \sigma }\mu _\sigma `$. In fact all these term may be rewritten in terms of the totally antisymmetric symbol $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu \lambda }`$ and the covariant metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ only.

## 4 Light Cone Gauge Hamiltonian of the M5-brane

In the previous section we obtained the general formulation of the BRST invariant effective action of the M5-brane in the covariant gauge (72), we showed that the action may be expressed in a manifestly Lorentz covariant way (in the target space), without restricting the induced metric to have an inverse. In this section we will analyze some stability properties of the effective action. To do so we will start from (70) and fix the light cone gauge, which leads to physical Hamiltonian after elimination of the constraints.

Consider the light cone gauge fixing conditions:

$`X^+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^+\tau `$ (81)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^+\sqrt{W},`$ (82)
We will later on discuss the gauge fixing conditions for the antisymmetric field.

The LCG allows to reduce canonically the phase space to its transverse part only. This is achieved by solving explicitly the constraint (26) for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+`$, $`X^{}`$ is eliminated from the constraint (27) provided an integrability condition is satisfy. This condition is a first class constraint which generates the volume preserving diffeomorphisms.

The canonical reduction of the effective action yields after the elimination of the ghost, antighost fields and Lagrange multipliers to the canonical Lagrangian:

$$\stackrel{~}{L}=\mathrm{\Pi }_M\dot{X}^M+P_{\mu \nu }\dot{B}^{\mu \nu }_p$$
(83)
where

$$_p=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^M\mathrm{\Pi }_M+g2(y+1)+\mathrm{\Theta }_{5i}\mathrm{\Omega }^{5i}+\mathrm{\Theta }_j\mathrm{\Omega }^j+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }$$
(84)
$`M`$ denotes the light cone transverse coordinates $`M=1,\mathrm{},9`$. The explicit expression for $`y`$ is given in (28). $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the antisymmetric Lagrange multiplier associated to the volume preserving diffeomorphism generated by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }`$. The explicit expression for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }=_\beta \{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^+\sqrt{W}}[\mathrm{\Pi }_M_\alpha X^M+\frac{1}{4}V_\alpha ]\}_\alpha \{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^+\sqrt{W}}[\mathrm{\Pi }_M_\beta X^M+\frac{1}{4}V_\beta ]\}.$$
(85)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }=0`$ is the local integrability condition in order to eliminate $`X^{}`$ from (27). There is also a global integrability condition given by

$$_c\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^+\sqrt{W}}[\mathrm{\Pi }_M_\alpha X^M+\frac{1}{4}V_\alpha ]𝑑\sigma ^\alpha =0$$
(86)
which ensures that $`X^{}`$ is a uniform scalar over the spatial world volume. $`C`$ is a basis of homology of dimension one. If a compactified target space is assumed, the right hand side of (86) may be proportional to an integer.

We have not fix the gauge associated to the antisymmetric field. There are at least three interesting partial gauge fixing conditions in this respect:

* The gauge fixing yielding

$$P^{\mu \nu }={}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\mu \nu }$$

as used in the formulation in
* The gauge condition

$$B_{5i}=0$$

which after double dimensional reduction of the theory yields the formulation of 4-brane in terms of the antisymmetric field
* The gauge

$$B_{\mu \nu }^T=0$$

where $`T`$ denotes transverse with respect to the derivatives operation. It yields after double dimensional reduction to the formulation of the 4-brane in terms of the Born-Infeld $`U(1)`$ vector field .

The absolute minimum of the Hamiltonian is obtained at the configurations satisfying

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_a`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (87)
$`g`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (88)
$`l^{\mu \nu }l^{\alpha \beta }g_{\mu \alpha }g_{\nu \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (89)
over any point of the spatial world volume $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_5`$, which we assume is closed without boundary.

If $`l^{\mu \nu }=0`$, then the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the space of physical configurations at which the minimum is obtained, becomes the set of maps $`X^a`$ from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_5`$ to the target space, depending on four linear combinations of the local coordinates. That is, all maps $`X^a`$ are functions of at most four of them. It is an infinite dimensional space of $`1,2,3`$ and $`4`$ branes. The degeneracy of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is analogous to the one that occurs for the $`D=11`$ supermembrane. There are string like spikes in that case, which are responsible together with supersymmetry for the continuous spectrum of the supermembrane. The degeneracy of the world volume may be pictured as lower p-branes emerging form the world volume which may have free ends on not. It can happen that the other end is plugged into another disconnected sector of the world volume. Such configuration is physically equivalent to the disconnected one, because the tubes not carry any energy. There is then, instability even in the topology of the membrane . These are general features of all $`p`$-brane which are also valid for the 5-brane, in spite of the fact that the known covariant formulation imposes restrictions to those singular configurations. The next question that one may ask is if these instabilities go away if the antisymmetric field is of maximum rank, using the fact that it enters in the action as a quadratic form. That is, if we consider the antisymmetric field living on a nontrivial higher order bundle (thus avoiding the $`l^{\mu \nu }=0`$ configuration), can we still have degenerate configurations?. The answer to this question is that even if we assume the antisymmetric field of maximum rank at any point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_5`$, there may be string like spikes with zero energy emerging from the world volume. This is so because the antisymmetric field $`l^{\mu \nu }`$ at any point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_5`$, has always at least one zero eigenvalue. Its eigenvector being the topological vector $`V_\mu `$, which is independent of the induced metric. In fact

$$l^{\mu \nu }V_\nu =0$$
(90)
at any point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_5`$.

If $`V_\mu `$ is a zero vector, then $`l^{\mu \nu }`$ has three eigenvectors with zero eigenvalue, and the following argument will be also valid.

We consider the following string like configurations

$`X^a`$ $`=`$ $`X^a(Y),`$ (91)
$`_\mu Y`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi V_\mu ,`$ (92)
where $`\varphi `$ is scalar field over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_5`$ which will be determined.

We may take the family of curves over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_5`$ tangent, at any point of an open neighborhood, to $`V_\mu `$. We assume $`V_\mu 0`$ on that open set. We then choose the $`\sigma ^5`$ coordinate along these curves. We then have:

$`_iY`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (93)
$`_5Y`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi V_5,`$ (94)
The solution to this equation is given by

$$\varphi =\frac{f(\sigma ^5)}{V_5},_5Y=f(\sigma ^5)$$
(95)
Where $`f`$ is an arbitrary scalar field over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_5`$.

We then conclude, that the quadratic term in the Hamiltonian arising from the antisymmetric field is zero for any of these string like configurations. That is, even when $`l^{\mu \nu }`$ is of maximum rank at any point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_5`$ the world volume can degenerate to acquire string like spikes with zero energy. We notice that when $`\mathrm{\Pi }_a=0`$, as we are assuming, the admissible configurations for the antisymmetric field are restricted by

$$_\mu X^{}=\frac{1}{4}V_\mu ,$$
(96)
even so there are admissible configurations with $`V_\mu 0`$ and of course with $`V_\mu =0`$. In the latest case we replace in the above argument $`V_\mu `$ by one of the eigenvectors of $`l^{\mu \nu }`$ with zero eigenvalue.

Finally, we discuss topological conditions which prevent (classically) the existence of degenerated spikes in the world volume. The condition we are going to discuss is not related to a BPS bound in the case of the 5-brane.

The integral of the determinant of the induced metric may be expressed as:

$$_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_5}\left(dX^adX^bdX^cdX^ddX^e\right)^{}\left(\frac{dX^a\mathrm{}dX^e}{\sqrt{W}}\right)$$
(97)
Where $``$ denotes the Hodge dual. A nontrivial minimum of this expression is achieved when

$${}_{}{}^{}U(dX^a\mathrm{}dX^b)=\text{constant}\text{integer}$$
(98)
for a set of five maps, $`\widehat{X}^1,\mathrm{},\widehat{X}^5`$. $`U`$ is then the curvature of a potential 4-form living on a non trivial higher order bundle , . In particular (97) implies that $`dX^1,\mathrm{},dX^5`$ are closed, non exact, 1-forms.

We may now show that the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of configurations at which this local minimum is obtained is finite dimensional. We consider any other set of maps $`X^1,\mathrm{},X^5`$ on the same higher order bundle. We have

$$dX^1\mathrm{}dX^5=U+\delta U$$
(99)
where $`\delta U`$ is exact. We then obtain

$$_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_5}(U+\delta U)(U+\delta U)=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_5}UU+_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_5}\delta U\delta U_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_5}UU$$
(100)
The equality is obtained when $`\delta U=0`$. The question is then if we can perform a deformation of $`\widehat{X}^1,\mathrm{},\widehat{X}^5`$ such that $`U`$ is preserved. This is always possible since we may consider

$$\delta X^5=f(\widehat{X}^1,\mathrm{},\widehat{X}^4)$$
(101)
where $`f`$ is an arbitrary scalar over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_5`$. It seems then that the same infinite dimensional space of configurations $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ will still exists. However, under assumption (98), they can be removed by a volume preserving diffeomorphism. In fact, if $`U`$ is preserved under the deformation, $`\delta U=0`$, then the deformed potential must satisfy

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`dV`$ (102)
$`\delta V`$ $`=`$ $`d\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (103)
However, under volume preserving diffeomorphisms with group parameter

$$\xi ^\mu =ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }_\nu \lambda _{\lambda \rho \sigma }$$
(104)
we obtain

$$\delta (\widehat{X}^ad\widehat{X}^bd\widehat{X}^cd\widehat{X}^dd\widehat{X}^eϵ_{abcde})=d(^{}U\lambda ),$$
(105)
$`{}_{}{}^{}U`$ being constant by (98). We may then cancel the deformation and remove the degeneracy of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ arising from exact forms in (102). We are thus left with the cohomology classes of closed forms only. The functional space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of minimal configurations is then finite dimensional.

## 5 Algebra of diffeomorphisms on a 6 dimensional world volume

We will find in this section all possible field theories, realized in terms of the fields $`X^a`$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ which are invariant under 6 dimensional diffeomorphisms. To do so, we will find the general structure of the Hamiltonian constraint by imposing the closure of the algebra of diffeomorphism. It turns out that the only polinomic constraint which depends on $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and not on its inverse is the associated to the 5-brane theory. The algebra is the following

$`\{\varphi _\rho ,\varphi _\mu ^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _\mu _\rho \delta +\varphi _\rho ^{}_\mu \delta (_\gamma P^{\gamma \delta })l^{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{\mu \delta \rho \alpha \beta }\delta `$ (106)
$`\{\varphi _\rho ,\varphi ^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`(\varphi +\varphi ^{})_\rho \delta 4(_\lambda P^{\lambda \alpha })D_{\alpha \rho }\delta `$ (107)
$`\{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝒞^{\rho \sigma }\varphi _\rho +𝒞^{\rho \sigma }\varphi _\rho ^{})_\sigma \delta `$ (108)
where the prime denotes evaluation at a point on the world volume of local coordinates $`(\sigma _1^{},\mathrm{},\sigma _5^{})`$. $`𝒞^{\rho \sigma }`$ and $`D^{\alpha \rho }`$ are local functions of the canonical variables. $`\varphi _\rho `$ may be realized in terms of the “topological” expression (27) (since it is independent of any metric on the world volume)

$$\varphi _\rho =\mathrm{\Pi }_a_\rho X^a+\frac{1}{4}V_\rho $$
(109)
where

$$V_\rho =ϵ_{\rho \alpha \beta \gamma \delta }l^{\alpha \beta }l^{\gamma \delta }$$
(110)
$$l^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}(P^{\mu \nu }+{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\mu \nu })$$
(111)
We propose for $`\varphi `$ the expression

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^a\mathrm{\Pi }_a+W$$
(112)
$`W=gF(y,z)`$ where $`F`$ is to be determined in order to satisfy (108). We notice that (107) is satisfied by any scalar density of weight 1, in the sense $`\varphi =g(\text{scalar field})`$, since $`\varphi _\rho `$ given by (109) generates the diffeomorphisms on the spatial 5 dimensional sector of the world volume.

The general solution for $`F(y,z)`$ is given by the space of solutions of the partial differential equation –We refer to Appendix A for the detail calculations of (108)–.

$$2\frac{F}{z}z+\left(\frac{F}{z}\right)^2z+y\frac{F}{z}\frac{F}{y}+\left(\frac{F}{y}\right)^2=2F2z\frac{F}{z}2y\frac{F}{y},F0$$
(113)
In particular, the following is a solution of (113):

$$F=2y+\lambda \sqrt{1+y+z}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{8}+2$$
(114)
for any value of $`\lambda `$.

The final form of the constraint for this solution is then given by

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^a\mathrm{\Pi }_a+g\left[2y+\lambda \sqrt{1+y+z}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{8}+2\right]$$
(115)
and replacing the expression for $`y`$ and $`z`$ we have

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^a\mathrm{\Pi }_a+g\left[g^1l_{\alpha \beta }l^{\alpha \beta }+\lambda \sqrt{1+\frac{1}{2}g^1l_{\alpha \beta }l^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{64}g^1g^{\mu \nu }V_\mu V_\nu }+\frac{\lambda ^2}{8}+2\right]$$
(116)
When $`\lambda =0`$ we obtain the constraint associated to the Lagrangian (1), which is quadratic on the field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$. It is interesting to study which could be the Lagrangian associated to the more general constraint (116). It turns out to be the Lagrangian (1) with cosmological term $`\frac{\lambda }{4}\sqrt{G}`$ added.

Indeed, the canonical analysis of such an action along the lines presented in section (2) yield constraint (116). Explicitly we have

$$L=2n\sqrt{gM}\frac{1}{4}N^\rho \widehat{V}_\rho +\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\mu \nu }_0B_{\mu \nu }+\frac{\lambda }{2}ng^{1/2}$$
(117)
from which we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_a=2\frac{g^{1/2}}{n}(\dot{X}_a+N^\lambda _\lambda X_a)T\frac{1}{4}\widehat{V}^\rho _\rho X_a$$
(118)
where

$$T=(M^{1/2}+\frac{\lambda }{4})$$
(119)
and from (118) –instead of (19)– we obtain (109) and (116) in the gauge $`P^{\mu \nu }=H^{\mu \nu }`$ .

We notice in (116), that the term $`gg^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4!}ϵ^{\mu \nu _1\nu _2\nu _3\nu _4}g_{\nu _1\lambda _1}g_{\nu _2\lambda _2}g_{\nu _3\lambda _3}g_{\nu _4\lambda _4}ϵ^{\nu \lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4}`$, hence it may be rewritten in terms of the covariant metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. The expression (116), consequently, may be expressed in terms of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, it is not assumed the existence of the inverse. In order that the scalar $`z`$ may be involved in an expression with that property, it must appear as

$$z^\alpha ,\alpha \frac{1}{2}$$
(120)
The expression will then be non-polinomic. The most general polinomic solution to (113) which does not depend on the inverse metric is then

$$F=ay+\frac{1}{2}a^2$$
(121)
for any real number $`a0`$. However $`a`$ must be at least $`a>0`$ in order to have a bounded from below Hamiltonian. It then may be rescaled to a fix number since the transformations

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Pi }\lambda \pi \hfill & ll,\hfill \\ X\frac{1}{\lambda }X\hfill & a\lambda ^6a,\hfill \\ \varphi \lambda ^2\varphi \hfill & .\hfill \end{array}$$
(122)
leave the canonical Lagrangian invariant. The property, of the realization of the algebra, for the M5-brane of being only dependent on $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and not on its inverse is preserved when we consider a dimensional reduction to $`5`$ dimensional world volume. If we impose the double dimensional reduction, in the sense

$`x^5`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^5`$ (123)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\sigma ^5}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (124)
we then obtain the following realization of the algebra

$`\{\varphi _i,\varphi _j^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _j_i\delta +\varphi _i^{}_j\delta (_kP^{kl}){}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{5m}ϵ_{ijlm}\delta `$ (125)
$`\{\varphi _i,\varphi ^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`(\varphi +\varphi ^{})_i\delta 4(_lP^{lm})l_{mi}\delta `$ (126)
$`\{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝒞^{ik}\varphi _i+𝒞^{ik}\varphi _i^{})_k\delta `$ (127)
where,

$`\varphi _k`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_a_kX^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{mnlk}P^{mn}{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{l}`$ (128)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^2+2g+2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}P^{ij}P^{kl}g_{ik}g_{jl}+{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{j}g_{ij})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ_{mnlk}P^{mn}P^{lk})^2`$ (129)
$`𝒞^{ik}`$ $`=`$ $`4(gg^{ik}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P^{ij}P^{kl}g_{jl}+{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{k})`$ (130)
$`{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}ϵ^{ijkl}H_{jkl}`$ (131)
This theory incorporates the singular configurations of the metric to the 4-brane theory. It does correspond to it in the flat limit  and couples consistently the antisymmetric field with the induced metric. However a direct check showing the equivalence of the canonical Lagrangian, arising from these constraints, and the usual 4-brane one has not be performed. The Hamiltonian constraint is now quartic in the antisymmetric field. We have explicitly checked the closure of this algebra with the structure functions given. It exactly correspond to the dimensional reduction of the 6 dimensional algebra previously obtained.

## 6 The subspace of solutions with flat induced metric

In this section we shall show how can we recover the master canonical action  —with the flat induced metric— starting from the canonical action constructed with the canonical Hamiltonian (23), which is quadratic in the antisymmetric field. To achieve this goal, we will rely on a particular solution of the field equations

Lets consider the field equations arising from the canonical Lagrangian

$$L=\mathrm{\Pi }_a\dot{X}^a+P^{\mu \nu }\dot{B}_{\mu \nu }$$
(132)
where

$$=\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi +\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha \varphi _\alpha +\mathrm{\Theta }_{5i}\mathrm{\Omega }^{5i}+\mathrm{\Theta }_j\mathrm{\Omega }^j$$
(133)
is the canonical Hamiltonian with the general form of the Hamiltonian constraint obtained in section (5).

By taking variations of (132) with respect to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_a`$ and $`X^a`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha `$ we obtain

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (134)
$`\varphi _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (135)
$`\dot{X}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Pi }^a+\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha _\alpha X^a`$ (136)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \varphi }{\delta X^a}}_a[\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha ]`$ (137)
We now consider the subspace of solutions of the field equations which satisfy initially

$`X^0`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _0`$ (138)
$`X^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^\alpha \alpha =1,\mathrm{},5`$ (139)
$`X^a`$ $`=`$ $`0,a6`$ (140)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_a`$ $`=`$ $`0,a6`$ (141)
We impose gauge conditions in the Lagrange multipliers

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }^0}}`$ (142)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha ,`$ (143)
We then obtain from (134), (135), (136) that (138) are preserved by the evolution equations and $`X^0=\tau `$. The explicit expressions for the constraints (134) and (135) , (116) and (27) respectively, provide us the values of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha `$ in terms of the antisymmetric field and their conjugate momenta, specifically from (135) we can get the values for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha `$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha =\frac{1}{4}V_\alpha $$
(144)
and replacing this result in (134) we obtain $`\mathrm{\Pi }^0`$

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^2+\frac{1}{32}V_\alpha V^\alpha +g(2y+\frac{\lambda ^2}{8}+\lambda M^{1/2}+2)=0$$
(145)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0=2\left(M^{1/2}+\frac{\lambda }{4}\right)$$
(146)
where $`M=1+y+z`$.

Replacing the expressions for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha `$ in the canonical Lagrangian (132) we finally obtain the canonical Lagrangian over a flat induced metric,

$$L=P^{\mu \nu }\dot{B}_{\mu \nu }2\left(M^{1/2}+\frac{\lambda }{4}\right)+\mathrm{\Theta }_{5i}\mathrm{\Omega }^{5i}+\mathrm{\Theta }_j\mathrm{\Omega }^j$$
(147)
When $`\lambda =0`$ we recover the master canonical action  for the Perry and Schwarz formulation .

## 7 Conclusions

We performed a complete canonical analysis of the bosonic M-theory five brane action corresponding to the partial gauge fixed formulation of the PST action where the scalar field is fixed as the world volume time. This canonical formulation is quadratic in the dependence on the antisymmetric field and it has second class constraints. We removed the second class constraints by proposing an extension of the canonical action derived from the covariant action of  and constructed a master canonical action with first class constraints only, preserving the locality of the field theory. We then constructed the associated nilpotent BRST charge, assuming a world volume with a compact without boundary spatial part, and its BRST invariant effective theory. The BRST charge is well defined even for configurations in which the induced metric has zero determinant at some point or open neighborhood of the world volume. It does not require the existence of the inverse of the induced metric. Consequently, the BRST effective action, which is manifestly Lorentz invariant in the target space and manifestly BRST invariant in the world volume, has also the same property. The singular configurations have then to be considered as physical one. This implies the existence of configurations changing the topology of the M5-brane without changing its energy. We expect then that they will have the same consequences as for the $`D=11`$ supermembrane with respect to its spectrum once the supersymmetry is implemented into the theory.

We obtained the physical Hamiltonian of the theory in the LCG from the general effective action (70) and analyzed its stability properties explicitly. We showed the existence of singular configurations, where $`g=0`$, even for maximum rank of the antisymmetric field. We also constructed global configurations where singularities are not allowed at any point of the world volume, and give a geometrical interpretation of them in terms of higher order bundles.

Finally, by studying the algebra of 6 dimensional diffeomorphisms we found the most general structure for the Hamiltonian constraint and we identified the constraint associated with the bosonic five brane action upgraded with a cosmological term as a constraint with a Born-Infeld type term. The M5-brane may be characterized from this algebraic point of view as been the only one whose Hamiltonian constraint is polinomial in the antisymmetric field and is well defined without assuming the existence of the inverse of the induced metric.

We have now all elements to start analyzing the spectrum of the super M5-brane. In particular to look at the massless states of the theory. It will be important to relate this problem to its dual one for the $`D=11`$ super membrane, where the spectrum was determined only for flat Minkowski target space using an $`SU(N)`$ regularization. Another aspect that may follow from our results is the explicit construction of the Seiberg-Witten map relating the M5-brane to a non-commutative geometries in terms of the BRST cohomology. In this sense, the simplectic structure we have constructed may be important.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank I. Bandos, M. Caicedo, L. Quevedo, D. Sorokin and J. Stephany for interesting discussions. We also would like to thank the theoretical group at Department of Mathematics, Kings College for kind hospitality and the Research Deanery, Grant G11, at USB for financial support.

## Appendix A Appendix

We will evaluate (26) in terms of the functions $`F(y,z)`$.

We have

$$\{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}\}=\{\frac{1}{2}\pi ^a\pi _a+gF,\frac{1}{2}\pi ^a\pi _a^{}+g^{}F^{}\}$$
(148)
which by explicit evaluation yields

$`\{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^a\left[\{\pi _a,g^{}\}F^{}+g^{}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{z^{}}}\{\pi _a,z^{}\}+g^{}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{y^{}}}\{\pi _a,y^{}\}\right]`$ (149)
$`+`$ $`g{\displaystyle \frac{F}{z}}\{z,z^{}\}g^{}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{z^{}}}+g{\displaystyle \frac{F}{z}}\{z,y^{}\}g^{}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{y^{}}}+g{\displaystyle \frac{F}{y}}\{y,z^{}\}g^{}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{z^{}}}`$ (151)
$`+`$ $`g{\displaystyle \frac{F}{y}}\{y,y^{}\}g^{}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{y^{}}}`$ (152)
The Piosson brackets of $`P^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\mu \nu }`$ is given by

$`\{P^{\mu \nu },{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\lambda }}\{P^{\mu \nu },_{\widehat{\rho }}^{}B_{\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{\sigma }}^{}\}`$ (153)
$`=`$ $`ϵ^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }\widehat{\rho }\mu \nu }_{\widehat{\rho }}^{}\delta (\sigma ^{}\sigma )`$ (154)
we then obtain

$`\{l^{\mu \nu },l^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[\{P^{\mu \nu },{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}\}+\{{}_{}{}^{}H_{}^{\mu \nu },P^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}\}\right]`$ (155)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }\widehat{\rho }\mu \nu }_{\widehat{\rho }}\delta `$ (156)
We also get

$`gg^{}[\{z,y^{}\}+\{y,z^{}\}]`$ $`=`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \alpha }g_{\nu \beta }l^{\mu \nu }l^{\alpha \beta },{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}g^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}V_{\widehat{\mu }}V_{\widehat{\nu }}\}+\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}g^{\mu \nu }V_\mu V_\nu ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\alpha }}^{}g_{\widehat{\nu }\widehat{\beta }}^{}l^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}l^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}\}`$ (157)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}g_{\mu \alpha }g_{\nu \beta }l^{\mu \nu }V^{\widehat{\mu }}\{l^{\alpha \beta },V_{\widehat{\mu }}^{}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}g_{\mu \alpha }^{}g_{\nu \beta }^{}l^{\mu \nu }V^{\widehat{\mu }}\{V_{\widehat{\mu }},l^{\alpha \beta }\}`$ (158)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}\left[(l_{\alpha \beta }l^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}V^{\widehat{\mu }}ϵ_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\lambda }})+()^{}\right]ϵ^{\alpha \beta \widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\lambda }\gamma }_\gamma \delta `$ (159)
and

$`gg^{}\{z,z^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{64}}V^\nu V^{\widehat{\nu }}\{V_\nu ,V_{\widehat{\nu }}^{}\}`$ (160)
$`\{V_\nu ,V_{\widehat{\nu }}^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`4ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu \sigma \lambda }ϵ_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }\widehat{\nu }\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\lambda }}l^{\sigma \lambda }l^{\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\lambda }}\{l^{\alpha \beta },l^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}\}`$ (161)
$`=`$ $`4ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu \sigma \lambda }ϵ_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }\widehat{\nu }\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\lambda }}l^{\sigma \lambda }l^{\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{\alpha \beta \widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }\gamma }_\gamma \delta `$ (162)
$`gg^{}\{z,z^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left[(ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu \sigma \lambda }V^\nu l^{\sigma \lambda })(ϵ_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }\widehat{\nu }\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\lambda }}V^{\widehat{\nu }}l^{\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\lambda }})+()_{\alpha \beta }^{}()_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}^{}\right]ϵ^{\alpha \beta \widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }\gamma }_\gamma \delta `$ (163)
We finally obtain

$$\{W,W^{}\}=I+II+III$$
(164)
where

$`\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}gV_\sigma g^{\sigma \lambda }+^{}\right]_\lambda \delta `$ (165)
$`\mathrm{II}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(l_{\mu \alpha }l^{\alpha \lambda }V^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}l_{\alpha \beta }l^{\alpha \beta }V^\lambda \right)+^{}\right]_\lambda \delta `$ (167)
$`\mathrm{III}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}V^\lambda V_\mu V^\mu +^{}\right]_\lambda \delta `$ (169)
We will now evaluated Poisson brackets related to $`X^a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_a`$.

We get

$$\{\pi ^a,g_{\alpha \beta }^{}\}=2_\alpha ^{}\delta (\sigma ^{}\sigma )_\beta ^{}x^a$$
(170)
which may be used to evaluate

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\pi ^a\pi _a,W^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^a\left[\{\pi _a,g^{}\}F^{}+\{\pi _a,F^{}\}g^{}\right]`$ (171)
$`=`$ $`\pi ^a\left[\{\pi _a,g^{}\}F^{}+g^{}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{z^{}}}\{\pi _a,z^{}\}+g^{}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{y^{}}}\{\pi _a,y^{}\}\right]`$ (172)
we obtain after some calculations

$$\frac{1}{2}\{\pi ^a\pi _a,W^{}\}=\mathrm{A}+\mathrm{B}+\mathrm{C}$$
(173)
with

$`\mathrm{A}`$ $`=`$ $`[2Fgg^{\sigma \lambda }\pi ^a_\sigma x_a+]_\lambda \delta `$ (174)
$`\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{F}{y}}g^{\sigma \lambda }l_{\alpha \beta }l^{\alpha \beta }\pi ^a_\sigma x_a+2{\displaystyle \frac{F}{y}}g_{\mu \alpha }l^{\mu \sigma }l^{\alpha \lambda }\pi ^a_\sigma x_a+]_\lambda \delta `$ (176)
$`\mathrm{C}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}[{\displaystyle \frac{F}{z}}g^{\sigma \lambda }g^{\mu \nu }V_\mu V_\nu \pi ^a_\sigma x_a+{\displaystyle \frac{F}{z}}g^{\mu \sigma }g^{\nu \lambda }V_\mu V_\nu \pi ^a_\sigma x_a+]_\lambda \delta `$ (178)
We now use (165) y (174) to obtain the closure of the algebra of constraints, that is to restrict $`F(y,z)`$ in order to satisfy (26). After some calculations we obtain the following partial differential equation to be satisfied by $`F`$,

$$2\frac{F}{z}z+\left(\frac{F}{z}\right)^2z+y\frac{F}{z}\frac{F}{y}+\left(\frac{F}{y}\right)^2=2F2z\frac{F}{z}2y\frac{F}{y}$$
(179)


text:
# Shaking a box of sand

11institutetext:  Institut für Theoretische Chemie und Molekulare Strukturbiologie, Universität Wien, Währingerstraße 17, A-1090 Wien, Austria; and The Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Rd., Santa Fe NM 87501, USA.
Service de Physique Théorique444URA 2306 of CNRS, CEA Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex, France.
S N Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Block JD Sector 3, Salt Lake, Calcutta 700098, India; and ICTP, Strada Costiera 11, 34100 Trieste, Italy.

Static sandpiles; granular compaction Granular flow: mixing, segregation and stratification

## Abstract

We present a simple model of a vibrated box of sand, and discuss its dynamics in terms of two parameters reflecting static and dynamic disorder respectively. The fluidised, intermediate and frozen (‘glassy’) dynamical regimes are extensively probed by analysing the response of the packing fraction to steady, as well as cyclic, shaking, and indicators of the onset of glassy behaviour are analysed. In the ‘glassy’ regime, our model is exactly solvable, and allows for the qualitative description of ageing phenomena in terms of two characteristic lengths; predictions are also made about the influence of grain shape anisotropy on ageing behaviour.

Vibrating sand results in very varied dynamics, ranging from glassy  to fluidised . Recent experiments, e.g. , have gone some way in validating the notion  that its essential features are captured by models which incorporate the fast relaxation of individual particles together with the cooperative rearrangements of clusters. In this Letter we present a simple model of a vibrated sand-box, which interpolates between the glassy and fluidised regimes, and is based on the generalisation of an earlier cellular automaton (CA) model  of an avalanching sandpile. Our model shows both fast and slow dynamics in the appropriate regimes: in particular, it reduces to an exactly solvable model in the frozen (‘glassy’) regime, and provides one with a toy model for ageing in vibrated sand .

We consider a rectangular lattice of height $`H`$ and width $`W`$ with $`NHW`$ grains located at its lattice points, shaken with vibration intensity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Each ‘grain’ is a rectangle with sides $`1`$ and $`a1`$, respectively. Consider a grain $`(i,j)`$ in row $`i`$, column $`j`$ whose height at any given time is given by $`h_{ij}=n_{ij}+an_{ij+}`$, with $`n_{ij}`$ the number of vertical grains and $`n_{ij+}`$ the number of horizontal grains below $`(i,j)`$:

* If lattice sites $`(i+1,j1)`$, $`(i+1,j)`$, or $`(i+1,j+1)`$ are empty, grain $`(i,j)`$ moves there with a probability $`\mathrm{exp}(1/\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, in units such that the acceleration due to gravity, the mass of a grain, and the height of a lattice cell all equal unity.
* If the lattice site $`(i1,j)`$ below the grain is empty, it will fall down.
* If lattice sites $`(i1,j\pm 1)`$ are empty, the grain at height $`h_{ij}`$ will fall to either lower neighbour, provided the height difference $`h_{ij}h_{i1,j\pm 1}2`$.
* The grain flips from horizontal to vertical with probability $`\mathrm{exp}(m_{ij}(\mathrm{\Delta }H+\mathrm{\Delta }h)/\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, where $`m_{ij}`$ is the mass of the pile (consisting of grains of unit mass) above grain $`(i,j)`$. For a rectangular grain, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=1a`$ is the height difference between the initial horizontal and the final vertical state of the grain. Similarly, the activation energy for a flip reads $`\mathrm{\Delta }h=b1`$, where $`b=\sqrt{1+a^2}`$ is the diagonal length of a grain.
* The grain flips from vertical to horizontal with probability $`\mathrm{exp}(m_{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }h/\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

Hereafter we consider $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }h`$ as phenomenological parameters, which will be seen to be related to the two main characteristic lengths in the system.

In line with recent investigations of compaction , we examine the behaviour of the packing fraction of our model, as a function of the vibration intensity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let $`N^{}`$ and $`N^+`$ be the numbers of vertical and horizontal grains in the box. The packing fraction $`\varphi `$ is:

$$\varphi =\frac{N^+aN^{}}{N^++aN^{}},$$
(1)
which we use as an order parameter reflective of the behaviour of the compactivity . The vertical orientation of a grain thus wastes space proportional to $`1a`$, relative to the horizontal one.

We examine the response of the packing fraction for $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }h=0.05`$ to shaking at varying intensities in Fig. 2. Since the ‘equilibrium’ packing fraction $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ (which we determined in separate runs) decreases with increasing intensity , we plotted the difference $`\varphi \varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ as a (logarithmic) function of time $`T`$ in the figure, starting with the same initial packing fraction in each case.

The dynamical response of the shaken sand-box includes three distinct regions, each illustrated by representative curves in the figure:

* a fluidised region (for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$), where we observe an initial increase (caused by a non-equilibrium and transient ‘ordering’ of grains in the boundary layer) of the packing fraction that quickly relaxes to the equilibrium values $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ in each case. This over-shooting effect in Fig. 2 increases with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, since grains ever deeper in the sand-box can now overcome their activation energy to relax to the horizontal. This inhomogeneous relaxation has been seen in earlier, off-lattice simulations of compaction . Analogous effects have also been observed in Ref. .
* an intermediate region (for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$), where the packing fraction remains approximately constant in the bulk, while the surface equilibrates via the fast dynamics of single-particle relaxation. The specific $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ at which this occurs (0.917 here), is the single-particle relaxation threshold density observed in Ref. ; non-equilibrium, non-ergodic, fast dynamics allows single particles locally to find their equilibrium configurations at this density. Analogous effects have been observed in recent experiments on colloids , where the correlated dynamics of fast particles was seen to be responsible for most relaxational behaviour before the onset of the glass transition.
* a frozen region (for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$), where the slow dynamics of the system results in a logarithmic growth of packing fraction with time:

$$\varphi \varphi _{\mathrm{}}=b(\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{ln}t+a,$$
(2)
where $`b(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ increases with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, in good agreement with experiment . The slow dynamics has been identified  with a cascade process, where the free volume released by the relaxation of one or more grains allows for the ongoing relaxation of other grains in an extended neighbourhood. It includes the phenomenon of bridge collapse, which, for low vibration intensities, has been seen to be a major mechanism of compaction . As $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ decreases, the corresponding $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ increases asymptotically towards the jamming limit $`\varphi _{\mathrm{jam}}`$, identified with a dynamical phase transition in related work .

We next investigate the analogue of ‘annealed cooling’, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is increased and decreased cyclically, and the response of the packing fraction observed . The results obtained here are similar to those  seen using more realistic models of shaken spheres, but the simplicity of the present model allows for greater transparency.

Starting with the sand in a fluidised state, as in the experiment , we submit the sand-box to taps at a given intensity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for a time $`t_{\mathrm{tap}}`$ and increase the intensity in steps of $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$; at a certain point, the cycle is reversed, to go from higher to lower intensities. The entire process is then iterated twice. Figure 3 shows the resulting behaviour of the volume fraction $`\varphi `$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where an ‘irreversible’ branch and a ‘reversible’ branch of the compaction curve are seen, which meet at the ‘irreversibility point’ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ . The left- and right-hand side of Figure 3 correspond respectively to high and low values of the ‘ramp rate’ $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }/t_{\mathrm{tap}}`$ . As the ramp rate is lowered, we note that:

* the width of the hysteresis loop in the so-called reversible branch decreases. The ‘reversible’ branch is thus not reversible at all; more realistic simulations of shaken spheres  confirm the first-order, irreversible nature of the transition, which allows the density to attain values that are substantially higher than random close packing, and quite close to the crystalline limit . Precisely such a transition has also recently been observed experimentally in the compaction of rods .
* the ‘irreversibility point’ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ approaches $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{jam}}`$ (the shaking intensity at which the jamming limit $`\varphi _{\mathrm{jam}}`$ is approached), in agreement with results on other discrete models .

The simplicity of our model also permits us to explore the onset of ‘glassy’ behaviour between the regimes where fast and slow dynamics respectively predominate. We explore this via a configurational overlap function

$$\chi (t_{\mathrm{ref}},\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i,j}{}\mathrm{\Theta }[B_{i,j}(t_{\mathrm{ref}}),B_{i,j}(t_{\mathrm{ref}}+\mathrm{\Delta }t)].$$
(3)
Here $`B_{i,j}(t)`$ can take three distinct values depending on whether the lattice site ($`i,j`$) at time $`t`$ is (a) empty, (b) occupied by a $`+`$ grain, (c) occupied by a $``$ grain. We write $`\mathrm{\Theta }[X,Y]=1\delta _{X,Y}`$; i.e., $`\mathrm{\Theta }[X,Y]=0`$ if $`X=Y`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the time lag. Figure 4 shows results for different values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1,0.7,5`$.

The left-hand panel ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1`$) shows the logarithmic behaviour characteristic of ageing, while the right-hand panel ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=5`$) shows the quick equilibration virtually independent of waiting times, which characterises the fluidised regime. The middle panel ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.7`$) exemplifies the behaviour characteristic of the transition between the two regimes: there is an apparent ‘equilibration’ into different metastable states depending on the waiting time $`t_{\mathrm{ref}}`$.

The frozen regime is characterised by an absence of holes within the sand-box, and negligible surface roughness. Here, our model reduces to an exactly solvable model of $`W`$ independent columns of $`H`$ noninteracting ‘grains’ $`\sigma _n(t)=\pm 1`$, with $`\sigma =+1`$ denoting a horizontal grain, and $`\sigma =1`$ denoting a vertical grain. The orientation of the grain at depth $`n`$, measured from the top of the system, evolves according to a Markov dynamics with depth-dependent rates

$$\{\begin{array}{c}w(1+1)=\mathrm{exp}(n\mathrm{\Delta }h/\mathrm{\Gamma }),\\ w(+11)=\mathrm{exp}(n(\mathrm{\Delta }H+\mathrm{\Delta }h)/\mathrm{\Gamma }),\end{array}$$
(4)
as $`m_{ij}=n=H+1i`$.

The order parameter describing the mean orientation, which we hereafter refer to as ‘orientedness’, $`\overline{M}(t)=(1/H)_{n=1}^HM_n(t)`$, with $`M_n(t)=\sigma _n(t)`$, is related to the packing fraction of equation (1) as

$$\overline{M}=\frac{(1+a)\varphi (1a)}{1+a(1a)\varphi }.$$
(5)
At equilibrium, the orientedness profile is given by $`M_{n,\mathrm{eq}}=\mathrm{tanh}\left(n/(2\xi _{\mathrm{eq}})\right)`$, while the local equilibration time diverges exponentially with depth $`n`$, as $`\tau _{n,\mathrm{eq}}\mathrm{exp}(n/\xi _{\mathrm{dyn}})`$. These expressions involve two characteristic lengths of the model, the equilibrium length $`\xi _{\mathrm{eq}}`$ and the dynamical length $`\xi _{\mathrm{dyn}}`$, which read

$$\xi _{\mathrm{eq}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }H},\xi _{\mathrm{dyn}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }h}.$$
(6)
In the scaling regime where the height $`H`$ and both lengths $`\xi _{\mathrm{eq}}`$, $`\xi _{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ are large, the mean orientedness is $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{eq}}(2\xi _{\mathrm{eq}}/H)`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{cosh}(H/(2\xi _{\mathrm{eq}}))`$. For $`H\xi _{\mathrm{eq}}`$, $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{eq}}H/(4\xi _{\mathrm{eq}})1`$: the system is very weakly ordered, even at equilibrium. For $`H\xi _{\mathrm{eq}}`$, $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{eq}}1(2\mathrm{ln}2)\xi _{\mathrm{eq}}/H`$: the system is strongly ordered at equilibrium, except for its top skin layer, whose depth is of order $`\xi _{\mathrm{eq}}`$.

As the equilibration time diverges exponentially with the depth, orientational order propagates down the system logarithmically slowly. More specifically, for a large but finite time $`t`$, only a top layer up to an ‘ordering length’ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ has equilibrated, with

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)\xi _{\mathrm{dyn}}\mathrm{ln}t.$$
(7)
We have $`M_n(t)M_{n,\mathrm{eq}}`$ for $`n\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$, whereas $`M_n(t)0`$ for $`n\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$. The most ordered grains are situated at a depth comparable to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$; they have a maximum orientedness $`M_{\mathrm{max}}(t)\mathrm{tanh}\left((\omega /2)\mathrm{ln}t\right)`$, where

$$\omega =\frac{\xi _{\mathrm{dyn}}}{\xi _{\mathrm{eq}}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }H}{\mathrm{\Delta }h}=\frac{1a}{b1}$$
(8)
is the ratio of both characteristic lengths.

The length $`\xi _{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is the length upto which disorder persists in the granular material when it has attained equilibrium. The length $`\xi _{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ determines the length to which order has propagated in the granular material in the glassy regime. For grains where there are nearly equivalent orientations, even at equilibrium, there will be a large number of ‘disordered’ configurations in the top layer, since these will be almost equivalent to the strictly ordered one. (An extreme example would be $`a1`$, which approximately corresponds to the packing of spheres, which are known to be disordered even in the nominally ‘equilibrium’ state of random close packing.) The length $`\xi _{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ controls the rate at which order propagates as a function of time in the glassy regime of a compacted powder. Both lengths, in experimental terms, thus have the interpretation of the depth of the boundary layer in a vibrated granular system; in the first case, this description applies when equilibrium has been reached, while in the second case, this applies to the nonequilibrium evolution of a vibrated granular bed.

In order for the model to exhibit interesting non-equilibrium or ageing effects, one must have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)H`$. The two-time quantities we investigate to explore ageing are the full two-time correlation function, $`S_n(t,s)=\sigma _n(t)\sigma _n(s)`$, and the connected one, $`C_n(t,s)=S_n(t,s)M_n(t)M_n(s)`$, with $`0s`$ (waiting time) $`t`$ (observation time). In terms of the overlap function of equation (3), we have $`\overline{S}(t_{\mathrm{ref}}+\mathrm{\Delta }t,t_{\mathrm{ref}})=12\chi (t_{\mathrm{ref}},\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$. We are led to consider two different non-equilibrium regimes. In each case, the mean observables can be expressed, after some algebra, in terms of the ordering lengths only (see Table 1).

In Regime I, the maximal ordering is very close to perfect, as $`1M_{\mathrm{max}}(t)t^\omega 1`$. This is the conventional frozen regime (to which our data in Figure 4 correspond). The top layer of the system is strongly ordered, most of the grains are flat, and likely to stay that way: the ageing phenomenon corresponds to the slow ordering attempts of grains deeper in the bulk, quantified by the logarithmic growth of the ordering length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$. Table 1 shows that the mean orientedness is nothing but the fraction $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)/H`$ of the system that has equilibrated. The two-time correlations are non-stationary, and they involve $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(s)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t+s)`$.

In Regime II, the maximal ordering is very weak, as $`M_{\mathrm{max}}(t)(\omega /2)\mathrm{ln}t1`$. This regime exists only for $`\omega 1`$, i.e., $`a1`$ in the geometrical model. It corresponds to an even slower dynamics, since now any attempts at ordering are hindered additionally by a strong probability that a horizontal grain will flip to the vertical orientation. Table 1 shows that the mean orientedness involves the square of the ordering length, while the two-time correlations do not exhibit any non-stationary features characteristic of ageing, at least to leading order, in this scaling regime.

The physical difference between the two scenarios is comprehensible in terms of disorder in grain shapes. Where grains are very irregularly shaped (Regime I), the non-equilibrium regime will carry all the usual characteristics of ageing. Where, however, grains are regularly shaped (Regime II), the signatures of ageing will be hard to detect even in a highly non-equilibrium regime. It would be interesting to test this experimentally: would ageing experiments carried out separately on weakly vibrated rods (Regime I) or spheres (Regime II) have different results?

In conclusion, the simplicity of our model makes it a useful conceptual tool for probing the dynamical responses of vibrated sand, from the fluidised to the frozen regimes. In the latter case, our model is exactly solvable, which allows one to describe the by now well-established picture of logarithmic compaction, in terms of two characteristic lengths. The improvement of this necessarily qualitative picture of ageing by the addition of more realistic and complex interactions, while still retaining the overall conceptual simplicity of our model, constitutes the focus of current research.