text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the main hopes regarding quantum cosmology is the possibility to obtain the initial conditions that will determine the ulterior evolution of the Universe when its classical regime is reached . For example, it is expected that the isotropy and homogeneity can be achieved due to the existence of a quantum phase, prior to the actual classical phase. Moreover, one expects that the initial singularity problem, which is one of the main drawback of the standard cosmological scenario, can be circumvented by the presence of quantum effects. In fact, it has already been shown explicitly that the classical singularity disappears in quantum cosmological scenario where gravity is coupled to a perfect fluid . In the present work, we address ourselves to another important question concerning the initial conditions of the Universe: can quantum effects suppress initial anisotropies, leading to an isotropic Universe as soon as the classical regime is reached? This is not the first time this question is addressed, of course, (see, for example, ). However, our approach distinguish from the previous ones by the description employed for the perfect fluid, which allows in principle the identification of a time coordinate. It permits, as consequence, to compare in detail different interpretations schemes, like the many-worlds  and the Bohm-de Broglie (dBB)  ones in order to obtain specific previsions for the evolution of the Universe and of the initial anisotropies. We will verify that there is a serious discrepancy between the results obtained through one scheme and the other, one showing an always isotropic Universe, while the other one indicates the existence of initial anisotropies which disappear asymptotically, as it happens in the corresponding classical model. This discrepancy reveals that the quantization of gravity coupled to perfect fluid leads to a very particular quantum system where some aspects of more ordinary systems, like the equivalence of the many-worlds and ontological approaches to quantum mechanics, are lost.

It would be perhaps worthfull to make some general considerations before to describe more in detail the problem to be treated here. It must be stressed, for example, that the meaning of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and of the corresponding wave function of the Universe, which are the basic entities in quantum cosmology, have no consensus until now. Besides the technical problems connected with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, a functional equation formulated in the superspace, the space of all possible three-dimensional metrics where no explicit time variable appears(what constitutes, of course, a serious problem), the interpretation of the results which can be obtained in specific situations is yet an open subject. Given a specific configuration (gravity plus perfect fluid, for example, as it is the case here), it is possible in principle to find its corresponding wave function, for example by freezing an infinity of degrees of freedom. This minisuperspace approach sacrifies of course some important aspects of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, like its functional character. But, even if the Wheeler-DeWitt equation may be solved under some restrictive asumptions like the use of a minisuperspace, it remains the question of how to extract unambiguously predictions from the wave function of the Universe.

In spite of all the controversies, quantum cosmology has experienced some progress in these last years. As an example, it has been shown by Brown and Kuchar  that the coupling of gravity to a dust fluid can lead to the recovering of the notion of time at quantum level. The Wheeler-DeWitt equation can be recast in a form similar to that of the Schrödinger equation, and a Hilbert space structure can be constructed. More generally, when a perfect fluid is coupled to gravity, and degrees of freedom are attributed to the fluid by expressing it through some suitable set of variables, as it happens in the Schutz’s formalism for the description of perfect fluid , a Schrödinger-type equation can be obtained, with the fluid variables playing the role of time. The expectation value of some dynamical quantities can be evaluated, in the spirit of the so-called many-worlds interpretation, and a quantum scenario can be sketched. Alternatively, the bohmian trajectories can be computed.

Such approach has obviously some limitations. In the quantum regime, we could expect that fundamental fields should be considered, instead of a perfect fluid. Moreover, exact solutions can be obtained only in the minisuperspace, where just some degrees of freedom are kept. But, such quantum perfect fluid models can be, in spite of their limitations, a very interesting laboratory, in the sense that the role played by quantum effects in the early Universe can be estimated. In a subject technically difficult and conceptually so controversial, the possibility of identifying naturally a time coordinate and of obtaining an explicit behaviour for some dynamical quantities, like the scale factor, may be seen as quite important achievements, in spite of the limitations of the model for the reasons quoted before.

Many aspects of the isotropic quantum cosmological perfect fluid models in the minisuperspace have been investigated in . In particular, it has been shown that, while the corresponding classical models exhibit an initial singularity, the quantum scenario is non singular. The results are rigorously the same for the evaluation of the expectation values and of the bohmian trajectories. This seems to be a quite relevant result since it is expected that quantum cosmology can give answer to the question of what are the initial conditions for the Universe. Here, as it has already been said, we want to answer another question concerning the initial conditions of the Universe: to what extent anisotropies that may appear in a classical model can be washed out by quantum effects.

In some previous work regarding this question, anisotropic models coupled to a scalar field were studied. In  a Bianchi I model was considered. In , the emphasis was on the tunneling from a classical forbiden to a classical allowed region in the configuration space. In  the bohmian trajectories were computed, revealing situations where isotropisation occurs. In  all other Bianchi models were taken into account in view of the evaluation of tunneling process. But, in all these cases there was no natural time coordinate in the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in the minisuperspace, and this fact limits drastically the extraction of unambiguous previsions from the quantum model.

As in the isotropic case, we will consider here an anisotropic model coupled to a perfect fluid, which is described with the aid of the Schutz’s variables, what lead to a natural time coordinate connected with the fluid variables. In order to be specific, we will consider a Bianchi I cosmological model. Through a convenient choice of metric variables, the hamiltonian can be diagonalized. The Wheeler-DeWitt equation in the minisuperspace can be solved. A wave packet is constructed, satisfying the necessary boundary conditions. With this wave packet, and since the notion of time has been recovered by identifying it with the matter variables, we can try to extract some specific scenario from this model. As it has already been stressed, we can do it essentially in two ways: by evaluating the expectation value of the scale factor, in the spirit of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, or by computing the bohmian trajectories, in the sense of the ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, these two ways of obtaining a prediction (which are in principle connected to different interpretation’s schemes) lead to different results: in the first one, we obtain that the Universe must be always isotropic; in the second one, anisotropies are present.

Perhaps this unexpected result can be understood by noting that the ”Schrödinger-like” equation for the anisotropic perfect fluid cosmological model has a hyperbolic signature in its reduced hamiltonian. It constitutes, in this sense, a very unusual quantum system for which the equivalence between the many-worlds and ontological interpretations of quantum mechanics is lost, as it will be discussed more in detail later.

In the next section, we construct the Wheeler-DeWitt equation for the anisotropic perfect fluid model. In section 3, we determine the wave function by using the separation of variables method. In section 4, the expectation value of the scale factor and the bohmian trajectories are obtained. The discrepancy between them are settled out. In section 5 we discuss the results and present our conclusions.

## 2 Wheeler-DeWitt equation for an anisotropic perfect fluid model

Our starting point is the action of gravity coupled to a perfect fluid in the Schutz’s formalism:

$$S=_Md^4x\sqrt{g}R+2_Md^3x\sqrt{h}h_{ab}K^{ab}+_Md^4x\sqrt{g}p$$
(1)
where $`K^{ab}`$ is the extrinsic curvature, and $`h_{ab}`$ is the induced metric over the three-dimensional spatial hypersurface, which is the boundary $`M`$ of the four dimensional manifold $`M`$; the factor $`16\pi G`$ is made equal to one. The first two terms were first obtained in ; the last term of (1) represents the matter contribution to the total action in the Schutz’s formalism for perfect fluids, $`p`$ being the pressure, which is linked to the energy density by the equation of state $`p=\alpha \rho `$. In the Schutz’s formalism , the four-velocity is expressed in terms of five potentials $`ϵ`$, $`\zeta `$, $`\beta `$, $`\theta `$ and $`S`$:

$$U_\nu =\frac{1}{\mu }(ϵ_{,\nu }+\zeta \beta _{,\nu }+\theta S_{,\nu })$$
(2)
where $`\mu `$ is the specific enthalpy. The variable $`S`$ is the specific entropy, while the potentials $`\zeta `$ and $`\beta `$ are connected with rotation and are absent for FRW’s type models. The variables $`ϵ`$ and $`\theta `$ have no clear physical meaning. The four velocity is subject to the condition

$$U^\nu U_\nu =1.$$
(3)
The metric describing a Bianchi I anisotropic model is given by

$$ds^2=N^2dt^2(X(t)^2dx^2+Y(t)^2dy^2+Z(t)^2dz^2).$$
(4)
In this expression, $`N(t)`$ is the lapse function. Using the constraints for the fluid, and after some thermodynamical considerations, the final reduced action, where surface terms were discarded, takes the form

$`S={\displaystyle }dt[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}(\dot{X}\dot{Y}Z+\dot{X}\dot{Z}Y+\dot{Y}\dot{Z}X)`$
$`+N^{1/\alpha }(XYZ){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{(\alpha +1)^{1/\alpha +1}}}(\dot{ϵ}+\theta \dot{S})^{1/\alpha +1}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\alpha }})].`$ (5)
At this point, is more suitable to redefine the metric coefficients as

$$X(t)=e^{\beta _0+\beta _++\sqrt{3}\beta _{}},Y(t)=e^{\beta _0+\beta _+\sqrt{3}\beta _{}},Z(t)=e^{\beta _02\beta _+}.$$
(6)
Using these new variables, the action may be simplified further, leading to the gravitational lagrangian density

$$L_G=6\frac{e^{3\beta _0}}{N}\{\dot{\beta }_0^2\dot{\beta }_+^2\dot{\beta }_{}^2\}.$$
(7)
From this expression, we can evaluate the conjugate momenta:

$$p_0=12\frac{e^{3\beta _0}}{N}\dot{\beta }_0,p_+=12\frac{e^{3\beta _0}}{N}\dot{\beta }_+,p_{}=12\frac{e^{3\beta _0}}{N}\dot{\beta }_{}.$$
(8)
The matter sector may be recast in a more suitable form through the canonical transformations

$$T=p_Se^Sp_ϵ^{(\alpha +1)},\mathrm{\Pi }_T=p_ϵ^{\alpha +1}e^S,\overline{ϵ}=ϵ(\alpha +1)\frac{p_S}{p_ϵ},\overline{p}_ϵ=p_ϵ.$$
(9)
The final expression for the total hamiltonian is

$$H=Ne^{3\beta _0}\{\frac{1}{24}(p_0^2p_+^2p_{}^2)+e^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0}p_T\}.$$
(10)
The lapse function $`N`$ plays the role of a lagrangian multiplier in (10). It leads to the constraint

$$H=0.$$
(11)
The quantization procedure consists in considering the hamiltonian as an operator which is applied on a wave function

$$\widehat{H}\psi =0$$
(12)
taking at the same time the momenta as operator, in the present case in the coordinate representation (we use natural units where $`\mathrm{}=1`$):

$$\widehat{p}_i=i\frac{}{\beta _i}.$$
(13)
Since the momentum associated to the matter degrees of freedom appears linearly in the hamiltonian, we can identify it with a time coordinate

$$\widehat{p}_T=i\frac{}{T}.$$
(14)
Due to the canonical transformations employed before, this new time is related to the cosmic time $`t`$ by $`dt=e^{3\alpha \beta _0}dT`$. In this way, we end up with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, in the minisuperspace, for an anisotropic Universe filled with a perfect fluid:

$$(\frac{^2}{\beta _0^2}\frac{^2}{\beta _+^2}\frac{^2}{\beta _{}^2})\psi =24ie^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0}\frac{\psi }{T}.$$
(15)
## 3 Construction of the wave packet

Now, our goal is to solve (15) and to construct the corresponding wave packet. To do so, we use the separation of variable method. First, we write the wave function as

$$\psi (\beta _0,\beta _+,\beta _{},T)=\varphi (\beta _0,\beta _+,\beta _{})e^{iET},$$
(16)
leading to the equation

$$(\frac{^2}{\beta _0^2}\frac{^2}{\beta _+^2}\frac{^2}{\beta _{}^2})\varphi =24Ee^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0}\varphi .$$
(17)
The function $`\varphi `$ is then written as

$$\varphi (\beta _0,\beta _+,\beta _{})=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0(\beta _0)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_+(\beta _+)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}(\beta _{}),$$
(18)
leading to the equation

$$\frac{_0^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0}+24Ee^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0}\frac{_+^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_+}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_+}\frac{_{}^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}}=0$$
(19)
where we have simplified in a obvious way the notation for the partial derivatives. The natural ansatz for the functions $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_\pm `$ is

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_\pm =C_\pm e^{ik_\pm \beta _\pm },$$
(20)
where $`C_\pm `$ are constants and $`k_\pm `$ are the separation parameters. This separation parameters must be real otherwise the wave function is not normalizable.

The equation determining the behaviour of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0`$ takes then the form,

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+(24Ee^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0}+(k_+^2+k_{}^2))\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0=0,$$
(21)
the primes meaning derivatives with respect to $`\beta _0`$. It is easily to see that the parameter $`E`$ must be positive. The previous equation can be solved through the redefinitions

$$a=e^{\beta _0},y=a^r,r=\frac{3}{2}(1\alpha ).$$
(22)
after what (21) takes the form of a Bessel’s equation:

$$\ddot{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_0+\frac{\dot{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_0}{y}+(\frac{24E}{r^2}+\frac{k^2}{r^2}\frac{1}{y^2})\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0=0$$
(23)
where $`k^2=k_+^2+k_{}^2`$ and the dots are derivatives with respect to $`y`$. The solution is

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0=C_1J_\nu \left(\frac{\sqrt{24E}}{r}a^r\right)+C_2J_\nu \left(\frac{\sqrt{24E}}{r}a^r\right),$$
(24)
with $`\nu =ik/r`$, $`C_{1,2}`$ being integration constants.

The final expression for the wave function is then

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{i(k_+\beta _++k_{}\beta _{})}[\overline{C}_1J_\nu \left(\frac{\sqrt{24E}}{r}a^r\right)+\overline{C}_2J_\nu \left(\frac{\sqrt{24E}}{r}a^r\right)]e^{iET}$$
(25)
where $`\overline{C}_{1,2}`$ are combinations of the preceding integration constants. We want now to construct a superposition of these solutions, generating a regular wave packet. In principle, this can be achieved by considering the integration constants as gaussian functions of the integration parameters $`k_\pm `$ and $`E`$. The general case constitutes a hard problem from the technical point of view. However, since the variables $`\beta _+`$ and $`\beta _{}`$ appear in a symmetric form in (15), we may consider, for simplicity, the final wave function as independent of one of them, which amounts to fix one the corrresponding separation parameter $`k_+`$ or $`k_{}`$ equal to zero. From here on we will consider $`k_{}=0`$. Notice that the final results would be the same if we had imposed $`k_+=0`$ and $`k_{}0`$. Hence, even if the anisotropic models are not analyzed in all their generality, a large class of them is covered in what follows.

Fixing $`k_{}=0`$, the wave packet is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{ik_+\beta _+}\{\overline{C}_1J_\nu \left(\frac{\sqrt{24E}}{r}a^r\right)+\overline{C}_2J_\nu \left(\frac{\sqrt{24E}}{r}a^r\right)\}e^{iET}dk_+dE.$$
(26)
In principle, in the expression for $`\nu `$ it appears the modulus of $`k_+`$ while in the first exponential in (26) we have $`\mathrm{}<k_+<+\mathrm{}`$. We will consider a superposition of both Bessel’s functions in such a way that the expression for the wave packet may be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}_0^{\mathrm{}}A(k_+,q)e^{ik_+\beta _+}J_\nu \left(qa^r\right)e^{iq^2T}dk_+dq,$$
(27)
with $`q=\frac{\sqrt{24E}}{r}`$ and

$$A(k_+,q)=e^{\gamma k_+^2}q^{\nu +1}e^{\lambda q^2}.$$
(28)
In this case, the integrals can be explicitly calculated, leading to the wave packet

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{B}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{a^{2r}}{4B}\frac{(\beta _++C(a,\beta _+))^2}{4\lambda }]$$
(29)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is a constant and

$$B=\lambda +isT,C(a,\beta _+)=\mathrm{ln}a\frac{2}{3(1\alpha )}\mathrm{ln}B,s=\frac{3(1\alpha )^2}{32}.$$
(30)
Notice that the wave packet given by (29) is square integrable, and it vanishes in the extremes of the interval of validity of the variables $`a=e^{\beta _0}`$ and $`\beta _+`$, being consequently regular as it is physically required. Remark that the wave packet (29) is indeed a solution of the equation (15), as it can be explicitly verified.

## 4 The scenario for the Universe

Having the expression for the wave function of the Universe, it is time now to obtain a specificic prediction for the behaviour of the dynamical functions in this model. To do so, there is two options: to evaluate the expectation values of the functions describing the evolution of the scale factors, in the spirit of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics; to evaluate the bohmian trajectories for those functions, in the realm of the ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics. In all known cases, these different procedures lead to the same results (to an explicit example treating the isotropic version of the present model, see ). The former procedure is possible in our case since we have a time coordinate $`T`$. We will evaluate the behaviour of the functions $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _+`$ using these two procedures.

Before to do this, let us just recall the classical solutions for the Bianchi I cosmological model with a barotropic perfect fluid described by $`p=\alpha \rho `$. For the time parametrization $`dt=a^{3\alpha }dT`$, $`t`$ being the cosmic time, the functions $`X`$, $`Y`$, and $`Z`$ admit the solution

$`X(T)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\beta _0+\beta _++\sqrt{3}\beta _{}}=X_0(T+c)^{\frac{1+2s_1}{3(1\alpha )}}(Tc)^{\frac{12s_1}{3(1\alpha )}},`$ (31)
$`Y(T)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\beta _0+\beta _+\sqrt{3}\beta _{}}=Y_0(T+c)^{\frac{1+2s_2}{3(1\alpha )}}(Tc)^{\frac{12s_2}{3(1\alpha )}},`$ (32)
$`Z(T)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\beta _02\beta _+}=Z_0(T+c)^{\frac{1+2s_3}{3(1\alpha )}}(Tc)^{\frac{12s_3}{3(1\alpha )}},`$ (33)
where $`c`$ is constant, and $`s_1`$, $`s_2`$ and $`s_3`$ are parameters such that

$$s_1+s_2+s_3=0,s_1^2+s_2^2+s_3^2=6.$$
(34)
Notice that there is an initial singularity, near which the Universe is very anisotropic, becoming isotropic asymptotically.

Let us return now to the computation of the quantum scenario through the use of the many-worlds and ontological interpretations of quantum mechanics.

### 4.1 Expectation values of the dynamical variables

Given the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the expectation value of a variable $`\beta _i`$ is obtained in the usual way:

$$<\beta _i>=\frac{_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}e^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\beta _i\mathrm{\Psi }𝑑\beta _0𝑑\beta _+}{_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}e^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }𝑑\beta _0𝑑\beta _+}.$$
(35)
The unusual measure in the integrals is due to the requirement that the reduced hamiltonian in (15) must be symmetric .

The first step is to calculate the denominator, which will be a common term for the computation of $`<\beta _0>`$ and $`<\beta _+>`$. Using again the definition $`a=e^{\beta _0}`$ and integrating in $`\beta _+`$, we obtain

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}a^{23\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }dad\beta _+=\sqrt{2\gamma \pi }F(T)_0^{\mathrm{}}a^{23\alpha }\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\lambda a^{3(1\alpha )}}{2B^{}B})da,$$
(36)
where

$$F(T)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{C_I^2}{2\gamma })}{B^{}B},$$
(37)
and

$`C(a,\beta _+)`$ $`=`$ $`C_R+iC_I,`$
$`C_R=\mathrm{ln}a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}\mathrm{ln}4B^{}B`$ , $`C_I={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3(1\alpha )}}\mathrm{arctan}({\displaystyle \frac{sT}{\lambda }}).`$ (38)
On the other hand, with $`\beta _i=\beta _0`$ in (35) we find for the numerator:

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}a^{23\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{ln}adad\beta _+=\frac{F(T)\sqrt{2\gamma \pi }}{9(1\alpha )^2}[\frac{2B^{}B}{\lambda }\left]\right\{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2B^{}B}{\lambda }\right)+n\},$$
(39)
where we have noted

$$n=_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(u)\mathrm{ln}udu0.577,u=\frac{\lambda }{2B^{}B}a^{3(1\alpha )}.$$
(40)
Hence,

$$<\beta _0>=\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}\{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2|B|^2}{\lambda }\right)+n\}.$$
(41)
This result leads to

$$e^{<\beta _0>}=(XYZ)^{1/3}=a_0[1+\frac{s^2T^2}{\lambda ^2}]^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}},$$
(42)
where $`a_0`$ is a constant. This is the same result as in the isotropic case . Consequently, the space volume evolves as in the corresponding isotropic case.

So, the anisotropies must be represented by the function $`\beta _+`$, whose expectation value will be computed in what follows. We will evaluate now the numerator of (35) with $`\beta _i=\beta _+`$. Integrating in $`\beta _+`$ and expressing $`\beta _0`$ in terms of $`a`$ as before, we find:

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}e^{3(1\alpha )}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\beta _+\mathrm{\Psi }d\beta _0d\beta _+=\sqrt{\pi }\{I_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(4B^{}B)}{3(1\alpha )}}I_2\}F(T),`$ (43)
$`I_1={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}a^{23\alpha }\mathrm{exp}\{\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{a^{3(1\alpha )}}{2B^{}B}}\}\mathrm{ln}ada,I_2={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}a^{23\alpha }\mathrm{exp}\{\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{a^{3(1\alpha )}}{2B^{}B}}\}da`$ (44)
The integrals $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ take the form,

$$I_1=\frac{1}{9(1\alpha )^2}[\frac{2B^{}B}{\lambda }\left]\right[n+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2B^{}B}{\lambda }\right)],I_2=\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}\frac{2B^{}B}{\lambda }.$$
(45)
Using the previous result for the denominator of (35) we find finally

$$<\beta _+>=\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\gamma }}\{\mathrm{ln}(2\lambda )n\}.$$
(46)
Surprisingly, the expectation value of $`\beta _+`$ does not depend on time. Consequently, the predicted result for the evolution of the Universe in this case is exactly the same as in the isotropic case: there is no anisotropy during all the evolution of the Universe.

### 4.2 Computation of the bohmian trajectories

The result found in the last section is quite unexpected. There is no trace of the anisotropies existing in the classical model in the corresponding quantum analysis. We note that in (15), the variables $`\beta _+`$ and $`\beta _{}`$ appear symmetrically, what it is not the case in the classical model. But, in order to verify better the meaning of this result, we will evaluate the bohmian trajectories which determine the behaviour of a quantum system in the ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics. In principle, the results furnished by the bohmian trajectories must be equivalent to those obtained through the computation of the expectation values.

In the ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wave function is written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=R\mathrm{exp}(iS),$$
(47)
where $`R`$ is connected with the amplitude of the wave function, and $`S`$ to its phase. When (47) is inserted in the Schrödinger’s equation, the real and imaginary parts of the resulting expression leads to the conservation of probability and to a Hamilton-Jacobi’s equation supplemented by a term which is identified as the quantum potential, which leads to the quantum effects distinguishing the quantum trajectories from the classical ones.

In this formulation of quantum mechanics, the trajectories (which are real trajectories) corresponding to a dynamical variable $`q`$ with a conjugate momentum $`p_q`$, are given by

$$\dot{p}_q=\frac{S}{q}.$$
(48)
Hence, the ontological formulation of quantum mechanics leads to a natural identification of a time coordinate, what is very important for quantum cosmology where in general there is no explicit time coordinate.

Let us consider the wave function (29). Putting in the form (47), the phase reads,

$$S(\beta _0,\beta _+,T)=\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{sT}{\lambda }\right)+\frac{sTa^{3(1\alpha )}}{4B^{}B}\frac{C_I}{2\gamma }(\beta _++C_R),$$
(49)
where all quantities are defined as before. The conjugate momenta associated to the dynamical variables $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _+`$ read

$$p_0=12a^{23\alpha }\dot{a},p_+=12a^{3(1\alpha )}\dot{\beta }_+,$$
(50)
where we have explicitly used the time parametrization such that the lapse function is given by $`N=a^{3\alpha }`$. The bohmian trajectories are then given by the expressions

$`12a^{23\alpha }\dot{a}`$ $`=`$ $`3(1\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{sT}{4B^{}B}}a^{3(1\alpha )}{\displaystyle \frac{C_I}{2\gamma }},`$ (51)
$`12a^{3(1\alpha )}\dot{\beta }_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_I}{2\gamma }},`$ (52)
dots representing derivatives with respect to $`T`$. Combining (51,52), we find

$$12a^{23\alpha }\dot{a}=3(1\alpha )\frac{sT}{4B^{}B}a^{3(1\alpha )}+12a^{3(1\alpha )}\dot{\beta }_+.$$
(53)
This last equation lead after integration to the expression

$$ae^{\beta _+}=D[\lambda ^2+s^2T^2]^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}.$$
(54)
Reinserting the relation in the equations (51,52) we can obtain the following solutions to $`a`$ and $`\beta _+`$:

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{24s\lambda \gamma }})^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}[\lambda ^2+s^2T^2]^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}[\mathrm{arctan}^2({\displaystyle \frac{sT}{\lambda }})+E]^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}},`$ (55)
$`\beta _+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}\mathrm{ln}\{\mathrm{arctan}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{sT}{\lambda }}\right)+E\}+\mathrm{ln}\{[24s\lambda \gamma ]^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}\}+\mathrm{ln}D,`$ (56)
where $`E`$ and $`D`$ are integration constants. Remember that $`s<0`$.

In opposition to the expressions obtained for the expectation values of $`\beta _0`$ (which is connected to $`a`$) and $`\beta _+`$ in the preceding subsection, the bohmian trajectories predict an anisotropic Universe. Until this point, this strange discrepancy is not so catrastrophic: in order the bohmian trajectories coincide with the results for the expectation value for some quantity, the integration constants that appear in the former must be averaged over an initial distribution given by the modulo of the wave function at $`T=0`$. At $`T=0`$, we have

$`a(T=0)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda E}{24s\gamma }})^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}},`$ (57)
$`\beta _+(T=0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\{[{\displaystyle \frac{24s\lambda \gamma D^{3(1\alpha )}}{E}}]^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}\}.`$ (58)
Hence,

$$=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }|_{T=0}=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0^2}{\lambda ^2}e^{\frac{E}{48s\gamma }\frac{1}{18(1\alpha )^2\gamma }\mathrm{ln}^2\left[\frac{D^{3(1\alpha )}}{4}\right]}.$$
(59)
For $`a`$ and $`\beta _+`$ the average on the initial conditions leads to the integral expressions

$`\overline{a}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}a(T)𝑑E𝑑D,`$ (60)
$`\overline{\beta }_+(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\beta _+(T)𝑑E𝑑D,`$ (61)
These expressions can be recast in the following form:

$`\overline{a}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _2\{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2+s^2T^2}{24s\lambda \gamma }}\}^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{x}{48s\lambda \gamma }}\left]\right[\mathrm{arctan}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{sT}{\lambda }}\right)+x]^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}dx,`$ (62)
$`\overline{\beta }_+`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _1{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{3(1\alpha )}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{x}{48s\lambda \gamma }}\left]\mathrm{ln}\right\{[\mathrm{arctan}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{sT}{\lambda }}\right)+x]\}dx,`$ (63)
where $`\beta _{1,2}`$ are numbers given by

$`\beta _1`$ $`=`$ $`48s\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\lambda }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2y}{2\gamma }}]dy,`$ (64)
$`\beta _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0^2}{\lambda ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2y}{2\gamma }}]dy,`$ (65)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^2\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{9(1\alpha )^2}}\right].`$ (66)
In the expressions above, we have written $`x=E`$ and $`y=D`$. The variables $`x`$ and $`y`$ were restricted to positive values in order to assure that the metric functions are real. Even if the integrals (62,63) seem to admit no simple closed expressions, it is evident that they are time dependent. The behaviour of $`\beta _+`$ and $`a`$ in function of time are displayed in figures 1 and 2 for $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\lambda =\gamma =1`$, indicating the presence of anisotropies even after averaging on the initial conditions, and revealing a non singular scenario, as can be easily deduced from the above expressions. Notice that these anisotropies disappear in both asymptotes. Hence, the bohmian trajectories predict an anisotropic Universe even after averaging on the initial probability distribution, in desagreement with the result obtained through the computation of the expectation value of the functions $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _+`$.

## 5 Conclusions

It is generally expected that quantum effects in the very early univere may furnish the set of initial conditions which will determine the subsequent evolution of the Universe when its classical phase is reached. By initial conditions we mean here the isotropy and homogeneity. Moreover, it is also expected that those quantum effects may lead to the avoidance of the initial singularity, one of the major problems of the standard cosmological model. In this work we have tried to analyse the possibility that quantum effects can suppress initial anisotropies. Specifically, we have studied a Bianchi I model with a perfect fluid, with an isotropic pressure, employing the Schutz’s description for perfect fluids. This problem has for us two main interests: first, it adds more degrees of freedom with respect to the isotropic model, since now we have four independent variables instead of just two; it permits to verify if anisotropies in the early Universe disappear in the quantum model, as it happens with the initial singularity for the corresponding isotropic one. The employement of Schutz’s formalism for the description of the perfect fluid present in the model allows us to identify quite naturally a time coordinate associated to the matter degrees of freedom, since the canonical momentum corresponding to the matter variables appears linearly in the hamiltonian. Hence, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation can be reduced to a Schrördinger-like equation.

We have solved the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in the minisuperspace. A wave packet was constructed for the special case that the wave function is independent of one of the variables, namely $`\beta _{}`$. This restriction was made only because of technical reasons, since it permits to obtain a closed expression for the wave packet. This wave packet is regular in the sense that it is square integrable and it vanishes in the extreme of the intervals of $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _+`$. Using this wave packet, we have determined the behaviour of the metric functions using first the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which implies to compute the expectation value of those functions. We found that there is no trace of anisotropies at any moment: the expectation value of the function $`\beta _+`$ is constant while the expectation value of $`\beta _0`$ has essentially the same expression as in the isotropic version of this problem. All the features of this model are the same as in the isotropic case.

Later, we have determined the behaviour of metric functions employing the ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics, determining the bohmian trajectories. Surprisingly, in this case the function $`\beta _+`$ is no longer a constant, and an initial anisotropic Universe is predicted. Asymptoticaly, it becomes isotropic like in the classical case. This result is maintained even after the averaging on the initial conditions. As it is well known  the bohmian trajectories should lead to the same results that are obtained computing the expectation values after averaging on the initial conditions. This equivalence does not occur for the anisotropic Bianchi I cosmological model.

To our knowledge, this is the first case where those interpretation schemes predict different results. In principle, since the ontological and the many-worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics are precisely ”interpretations” procedures, they must furnish the same results which are ”seen” from different perspective, as we have already stressed. In the present case, the results themselves are different. What are the reasons for this discrepancy? We guess that the reason for this unexpected feature lies in the fact that the ”Schrödinger-like” equation obtained after quantizing the anisotropic perfect fluid model has a hyperbolic signature in its ”spatial” sector. This leads to two different problems: first, the energy of a free-particle is not positive definite anymore; second, in some sense the functions $`\beta _+`$ and $`\beta _{}`$ play also the role of time, in a way similar to what happens in the Klein-Gordon equation. For both reasons, the equivalence between the ontological and many-worlds approaches to the problem is broken. This rises the question of which approach to use, a very intringuing problem that it is not addressed in the present paper.

To verify the hypothesis that the discrepancy found in the results obtained using the many-worlds and ontological interpretations of quantum mechanic, we change the signature of the hamiltonian (10) by force, making the transformations $`p_+^2p_+^2`$ and $`p_{}^2p_{}^2`$. In this way, the hamiltonian (10) gains an elliptical structure. In this case, discarding the momentum $`p_{}`$ by simplicity, what leads to two dimensional problem, and performing the canonical transformations

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{3}{2}(1\alpha )\beta _0}}{1\alpha }},p_x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}p_0e^{\frac{3}{2}(1\alpha )\beta _0},`$ (67)
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{24}e^{\frac{3}{2}(1\alpha )\beta _0}\beta _+,p_y={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}p_+e^{\frac{3}{2}(1\alpha )\beta _0},`$ (68)
the hamiltonian (10) takes the form

$$H=p_x^2p_y^2+p_T,$$
(69)
which is the hamiltonian for a free-particle in two dimensions. In the free-particle problem, it is easy to verify that the many-worlds and ontological interpretations give the same results . Hence, the discrepancy found above disappears if the the signature of the spatial part of the hamiltonian is made elliptical.

Acknowledgements: We thank CNPq (Brazil) for partial financial support.

Figure captions

Figure 1: Behaviour of $`\beta _+`$ for $`\alpha =0`$, $`\lambda =\gamma =1`$

Figure 2: Behviour of $`a`$ for $`\alpha =0`$, $`\lambda =\gamma =1`$


format: text

text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

In the canonical treatment of Yang-Mills theories and, in general, of gauge theories, the space $`𝒜/Gau\left(P\right)`$ represents the space of the physical configurations of the system. Here $`𝒜`$ denotes the set of the smooth connections on a principal bundle $`P(M,G)`$ and $`Gau\left(P\right)`$ the group of gauge transformations, the base manifold $`M`$ is connected and $`G`$ is a connected compact Lie group.

A moment of paramount importance in developing the canonical quantization program for gauge theories invariant under diffeomorphisms, as proposed by Ashtekar et al. (, ), is to construct a compactification of the configuration space $`𝒜/Gau\left(P\right)`$. This compactification $`\overline{𝒜/Gau\left(P\right)}`$, called quantum configuration space, is achieved by means of the immersion of $`𝒜/Gau\left(P\right)`$ in the spectrum of a suitable $`^{}`$-algebra of functions on $`𝒜/Gau\left(P\right)`$, depending on holonomies on paths or on loops. To obtain the physical states for the corresponding quantum theory, a measure $`\mu `$ on the spectrum $`\overline{𝒜/Gau\left(P\right)}`$ is given and diffeomorphism invariant states are selected in the Hilbert space $`L^2(\overline{𝒜/Gau\left(P\right)},\mu )`$. This quantization procedure is known as the loop quantization and originates from the works of Rovelli and Smolin .

The starting point is the identification of a connection $`A`$ with its holonomy map $`\gamma H_A\left(\gamma \right)`$, where $`H_A\left(\gamma \right)`$ means the parallel transport along the path $`\gamma `$; gauge equivalence classes of connections are identified with gauge equivalence classes of holonomy maps on loops ( , ).

Well known examples of gauge invariant functions depending on holonomies are the Wilson functions, defined - up to a scalar factor - as the maps $`ATrH_A\left(\lambda \right)`$, where $`\lambda `$ is a loop. The generated $`^{}`$-algebra is called holonomy algebra and depends on the differentiability class of loops. In the case that $`G`$ is $`U\left(𝗇\right)`$ or $`SU\left(𝗇\right)`$, the Wilson functions are separating on $`𝒜/Gau\left(P\right)`$, so that $`𝒜/Gau\left(P\right)`$ is densely immersed in the spectrum of the holonomy algebra.

For a general group $`G`$ the Wilson functions are no more separating, so one considers cylindrical functions, functions of the form $`Af(H_A\left(\gamma _1\right),\mathrm{},H_A\left(\gamma _n\right))`$, for given paths $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n`$. The $`^{}`$-algebra generated by the cylindrical functions is called cylindrical algebra; the invariant cylindrical algebra is also defined. The cylindrical functions are separating on $`𝒜`$ so that $`𝒜`$ is densely embedded in the spectrum of the cylindrical algebra and, as well, $`𝒜/Gau\left(P\right)`$ is densely embedded in the spectrum of the invariant cylindrical algebra.

The case of piecewise analytic loops and paths was the first to be investigated and many and nice results were obtained (see , , , , ). It was proved that the spectrum $`\overline{𝒜}`$ of the cylindrical algebra agrees with the space $`Hom(\mathrm{𝖯𝖺𝗍𝗁}\left(M\right),G)`$ of the generalized connections, i.e. homomorphisms into $`G`$ of the groupoid $`\mathrm{𝖯𝖺𝗍𝗁}\left(M\right)`$ of piecewise analytic paths. The spectrum $`\overline{𝒜/Gau\left(P\right)}`$ of the invariant analytical cylindrical algebra was proved to agree with the space $`Hom(\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝗈𝗉}_{}\left(M\right),G)/AdG`$ of the $`AdG`$-equivalence classes of homomorphisms into $`G`$ of the group of piecewise analytic loops. Measures invariant under analytic diffeomorphisms have been constructed on this space by projective techniques using families of measures labelled by embedded graphs. For the so called natural measure a complete orthonormal set of states - the spin network states, depending on embedded graphs - was constructed and the invariance under analytic diffeomorphisms implemented.

However the analytic setting is not satisfactory from the physical point of view, since invariance with respect to smooth diffeomorphisms is needed to use this quantization scheme for gravity.

In  the case of piecewise smoothly immersed paths was approached and the webs were introduced, special families of paths which play in the smooth immersive setting an analogous role to that of the embedded graphs in the analytic setting. Like every finite family of piecewise analytic paths depends on an embedded graph, i.e. every path can be written as a composition of edges belonging to the graph or of their inverses, so in the smooth immersive setting every finite family of paths depends on a web. This implies that the smooth immersive cylindrical algebra $`Cyl\left(𝒜\right)`$ is the limit of the algebras $`Cyl_W\left(𝒜\right)`$ generated by the cylindrical functions depending on a web $`W`$; dually, the spectrum of the cylindrical algebra is the projective limit of the spectra of $`Cyl_W\left(𝒜\right)`$. In  a diffeomorphism invariant measure was constructed using projective techniques, spin network states and spin web states were defined. The theory is quite involved, due to the fact that webs have a more involved behaviour than graphs and that the spectrum of the cylindrical algebra is not so simple to be characterized.

In this paper we introduce the cylindrical algebras, the invariant cylindrical algebras and the Wilson algebras in a general setting and illustrate their relations. These are algebras of functions defined on a subset $`𝒜`$ of $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, the space of homomorphisms of a general groupoid $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ into a connected compact Lie group $`G`$. We prove that the spectrum of the cylindrical algebras is always the closure $`\overline{𝒜}`$ of $`𝒜`$ in $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$.

For applications to gauge theories $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a suitable groupoid of paths. The problem arises when $`\overline{𝒜}=Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, where $`𝒜`$ is the set of connections. In the smooth immersive case this is true for a connected compact semisimple Lie group $`G`$, as proved in , but it is not true in the non semisimple case . We characterize $`\overline{𝒜}`$ as a subset of $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ for a general connected compact Lie group $`G`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the groupoid $`Path\left(M\right)`$ of piecewise smooth immersed paths.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we introduce the cylindrical algebras and we formulate in various forms the Approximation Condition, i.e. the condition that $`𝒜`$ is dense in $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$. We consider also the cylindrical algebras invariant under the action of $`G^M`$, where $`M`$ is the space of units of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and we discuss their spectrum. In this section we develop and generalize some ideas proposed in .

In section 3 we define the Wilson functions on a subset $`𝒜`$ of $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a group. We investigate the spectrum of the generated $`^{}`$-algebra and its relations with the invariant cylindrical algebras.

In section 4 we apply the previous results to the holonomy algebras and to the cylindrical algebras on the space $`𝒜`$ of connections on the trivial bundle $`M\times G`$. The groupoid is now $`\mathrm{𝖯𝖺𝗍𝗁}\left(M\right)`$ or $`Path\left(M\right)`$. Also the group $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝗈𝗉}_{}\left(M\right)`$ of piecewise analytic loops or the group $`Loop_{}\left(M\right)`$ of piecewise smoothly immersed loops are considered. We discuss the relationship between the corresponding cylindrical algebras and the consistence of their spectrum.

In the last section we discuss cylindrical algebras in the general setting of non trivial bundles.

## 2. Algebras of cylindrical functions

Let we start recalling some well known results on Abelian $`^{}`$-algebras of functions. Let $`X`$ be a non empty set, $`B\left(X\right)`$ the Abelian $`^{}`$-algebra of bounded functions on $`X`$ and let $`B\left(X\right)`$ a $`^{}`$-subalgebra separating on $`X`$. The evaluation map associates to every $`xX`$ the multiplicative functional $`ev_x:𝐂`$, $`ev_x\left(f\right)=f\left(x\right)`$. By the assumption that $``$ is separating the map $`ev:xev_x`$ is an embedding of $`X`$ in $`Spec\left(\right)`$. Moreover $`X`$ is dense in $`Spec\left(\right)`$ by the normality axiom. Therefore the following proposition holds.

###### Proposition 1.

Let $``$ be any $`^{}`$-subalgebra of $`B(X)`$, separating on $`X`$. Then $`X`$ is injectively and densely embedded in $`Spec()`$ by the evaluation map.

Let $`X`$ be a compact (Hausdorff) space. If $``$ is the algebra $`C\left(X\right)`$ of the continuous functions, the evaluation map is an homeomorphism of $`X`$ onto $`Spec\left(\right)`$.

For every nonempty subset $`Y`$ of $`X`$, we associate the $`^{}`$-algebraic homomorphism $`R_Y:C\left(X\right)C\left(Y\right)B\left(Y\right)`$, $`R_Y\left(F\right)=F_Y`$ where $`F_Y`$ is the restriction of $`F`$ to $`Y`$. When $`Y`$ is closed, $`R_Y`$ is onto $`C\left(Y\right)`$ by Tietze extension Theorem; for $`YZX`$ and $`Z`$ closed, the range of $`R_Y`$ agrees with the set of restrictions to $`Y`$ of continuous functions on $`Z`$. We denote by $`\left(Y\right)`$ the $`^{}`$-algebra generated by the range of $`R_Y`$. When $`\overline{Y}=X`$, the map $`R_Y`$ is an isometric isomorphism of $`C\left(X\right)`$ onto $`\left(Y\right)`$ whose inverse is the map which extends each $`F\left(Y\right)`$ to a continuous function on $`X`$. So we have that, for every $`YX`$, the $`^{}`$-algebra $`\left(Y\right)`$ is naturally isomorphic to $`C\left(\overline{Y}\right)`$.

###### Lemma 1.

For every $`YX`$, the map $`E_Y:Spec((Y))X,E_Y(\phi )=x_\phi `$, with $`x_\phi `$ given by

$$F\left(x_\phi \right)=\phi \left(F_Y\right)F𝒮C\left(X\right)$$

for $`𝒮`$ separating on $`X`$, does not depend on $`𝒮`$ and is a continuous embedding and a homeomorphism onto $`\overline{Y}`$.

Proof. The map $`E_Y`$ is the composition of $`R_Y^{}:Spec\left(\left(Y\right)\right)Spec\left(C\left(X\right)\right)`$ with the inverse of the evaluation map $`ev:XSpec\left(C\left(X\right)\right).`$ The map $`R_Y^{}`$ is injective, since the image of $`R_Y`$ is dense in $`\left(Y\right)`$ and the evaluation map is a homeomorphism, since $`X`$ is compact. To prove continuity, recall that the topology on $`X`$ agrees with the $`w^{}`$-topology. Let $`\overline{x}=E_Y\left(\overline{\phi }\right)`$ for a given $`\overline{\phi }Spec\left(\left(Y\right)\right)`$; consider a finite family $`\left\{F_k\right\}_{k=1,\mathrm{},r}`$ in $`C\left(X\right)`$ and the open neighborhood of $`\overline{x}`$

$$\left\{xX\right|\left|F_k\left(x\right)F_k\left(\overline{x}\right)\right|<ϵk=1,\mathrm{},r\}.$$

Its inverse image by $`E_Y`$ is the set

$$\left\{\phi Spec\left(\left(Y\right)\right)\right|\left|\phi \left(R_YF_k\right)\overline{\phi }\left(R_YF_k\right)\right|<ϵk=1,\mathrm{},r\},$$

an open set in the $`w^{}`$-topology. So $`E_Y`$ is continuous, its image is closed and contains $`\overline{Y}`$, since $`E_Y\left(ev_y\right)=y`$ for every $`yY`$.

By Proposition 1, every $`\phi Spec\left(\left(Y\right)\right)`$ is the weak limit of some net of pure states $`\left\{\phi _\mu \right\}`$ with $`\phi _\mu =ev_{y_\mu }`$, $`y_\mu Y`$, hence $`E_Y\left(\phi \right)=lim_\mu y_\mu `$, proving that $`E_Y`$ is onto $`\overline{Y}`$.

Finally, we recall that every continuous injection of a compact space into a Hausdorff topological space is a homeomorphism with its image. $`\mathrm{}`$

The condition that $`Y`$ is dense in $`X`$ will be called Approximation Condition on $`Y`$ and is conveniently stated in the following way:

For every $`xX`$, every finite family $`\{F_k\}_{k=1,\mathrm{},r}`$ in $`C(X)`$ and $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`yY`$ such that

$$\left|F_k\left(x\right)F_k\left(y\right)\right|<ϵk=1,\mathrm{},r.$$

The condition can be restated by choosing $`\left\{F_k\right\}_{k=1,\mathrm{},r}𝒮`$ if $`𝒮`$ is any separating subset of $`C\left(X\right)`$.

Now we assume that a compact group $`𝖦`$ acts continuously on $`X`$. The quotient space $`X/𝖦`$ is a (Hausdorff) compact space and the canonical projection $`\left[\right]:XX/𝖦`$ is continuous, open and closed. The $`^{}`$-algebra $`C_𝖦\left(X\right)`$ of the $`𝖦`$-invariant continuous functions on $`X`$ is identified with $`C\left(X/𝖦\right)`$ by pull-back with the projection. As $`X/𝖦`$ is compact, $`C_𝖦\left(X\right)`$ is separating on $`X/𝖦`$.

For every $`𝖦`$-invariant subset $`Y`$ of $`X`$ we get by simple topological arguments that $`\overline{Y}`$ is $`𝖦`$-invariant, that $`\overline{Y/𝖦}=\overline{Y}/𝖦`$ and that the map $`R_Y`$ is equivariant. We denote by $`_𝖦\left(Y\right)`$ the $`^{}`$-subalgebra of $`𝖦`$-invariant functions in $`\left(Y\right)`$.

###### Lemma 2.

For every $`𝖦`$-invariant $`YX`$, the map $`I_Y:Spec(_𝖦(Y))X/𝖦`$, $`I_Y(\phi )=[x_\phi ]`$, where $`x_\phi X`$ satisfies

$$F\left(x_\phi \right)=\phi \left(R_YF\right)F𝒮C_𝖦\left(X\right)$$

for $`𝒮`$ separating on $`X/G`$, does not depend on $`𝒮`$ and is a continuous embedding and a homeomorphism onto $`\overline{Y/𝖦}`$. $`I_Y`$ is a homeomorphism onto $`X/𝖦`$ if and only if $`Y`$ satisfies the Approximation Condition.

Proof. We identify $`C_𝖦\left(X\right)`$ with $`C\left(X/𝖦\right)`$ and $`_𝖦\left(Y\right)`$ with $`\left(Y/𝖦\right)`$; then we can apply Lemma 1 to $`\left(Y/G\right)`$.

For the last statement, we remark that $`\overline{Y/𝖦}=\overline{Y}/𝖦`$ and equals $`X/𝖦`$ if and only if $`\overline{Y}=X`$. This follows easily by the $`𝖦`$-invariance of $`\overline{Y}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

As an immediate consequence of the previous arguments we obtain the canonical isomorphisms

$$_𝖦\left(Y\right)C_𝖦\left(\overline{Y}\right)C\left(\overline{Y}/𝖦\right).$$

When $`Y`$ is $`𝖦`$-invariant the Approximation Condition on $`Y/𝖦`$ can be stated on $`Y/𝖦`$ in terms of $`𝖦`$-invariant functions, as follows:

For every $`xX`$, every finite family $`\{F_k\}_{k=1,\mathrm{},r}C_𝖦(X)`$ and $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`yY`$ such that

$$\left|F_k\left(x\right)\right)F_k\left(y\right)|<ϵk=1,\mathrm{},r.$$

The condition can be restated by choosing the functions $`F_k`$ in any separating subset $`𝒮C_𝖦\left(X\right)`$.

More generally, let $`\overline{Y}`$ be $`𝖦`$-invariant but $`Y`$ be not necessarily $`𝖦`$-invariant. This can be true, e.g., if the Approximation Condition on $`Y`$ holds. Using the isomorphism $`\left(Y\right)C\left(\overline{Y}\right)`$, we can again consider the subalgebra $`_𝖦\left(Y\right)`$ of the functions $`F\left(Y\right)`$ whose extension is $`𝖦`$-invariant and we have

$$Spec\left(_𝖦\left(Y\right)\right)\overline{Y}/𝖦.$$

Now we come to the cylindrical algebras. Let us begin with the definition of groupoid.

A groupoid is a set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ endowed with a binary composition law satisfying:

i) to every $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ an element $`\lambda ^1`$ (the inverse) is associated such that $`r\left(\lambda \right)=\lambda \lambda ^1`$ and $`s\left(\lambda \right)=\lambda ^1\lambda `$ exist and are the right and the left unit of $`\lambda `$, respectively;

ii) for $`\lambda ,\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the product $`\lambda \eta `$ exists if and only if $`r\left(\eta \right)=s\left(\lambda \right)`$;

iii) when defined, the product is associative.

We denote by $`M\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ the set of units of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, i.e. the elements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the form $`\lambda \lambda ^1`$ for some $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. A groupoid $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a group if and only if $`M\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ is a singleton. Let $`G`$ denote a closed subgroup of $`U\left(𝗇\right)`$, the group of unitary matrices in dimension $`𝗇`$. The set of homomorphisms $`H:\mathrm{\Lambda }G`$, denoted by $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, is a compact space since it is closed in $`G^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, a compact group in the Tychonoff product topology.

For a continuous function $`f:G^m`$ and a finite family $`\left\{\lambda _k\right\}_{k=1,\mathrm{},m}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the continuous function $`F_{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _m;f}:Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ defined by

$$F_{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _m;f}\left(H\right)=f(H\left(\lambda _1\right),H\left(\lambda _2\right),\mathrm{},H\left(\lambda _m\right)),$$

is called cylindrical function. The cylindrical functions form a normed $``$-algebra $`cyl\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)`$, whose completion is a $`^{}`$-algebra, denoted by $`Cyl\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)`$. For any subset $`𝒜`$ of $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, the \*-algebra of the restrictions to $`𝒜`$ of the cylindrical functions is denoted by $`cyl\left(𝒜\right)`$ and the completion of $`cyl\left(𝒜\right)`$ by $`Cyl\left(𝒜\right)`$.

For $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},𝗇`$ and $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the cylindrical function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j;\lambda }`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j;\lambda }\left(H\right)=H\left(\lambda \right)_{i,j}HHom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G),$$

where $`H\left(\lambda \right)_{i,j}`$ denotes the corresponding matrix elements of $`H\left(\lambda \right)`$, will be called representative function. The representative functions are separating on $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, hence their restrictions are separating on every subset $`𝒜`$. By Proposition 1 the evaluation map is a dense embedding of $`𝒜`$ in $`Spec\left(Cyl\left(𝒜\right)\right)`$.

When $`𝒜`$ is closed, the Weierstrass Theorem gives $`Cyl\left(𝒜\right)=C\left(𝒜\right)`$; as a special case we have $`Cyl\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)=C\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)`$. Recalling that $`\left(𝒜\right)`$ is the $`^{}`$-algebra generated by the range of the restriction map $`R_𝒜:C\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)C\left(𝒜\right)`$, we get easily that $`\left(𝒜\right)=Cyl\left(𝒜\right)`$. As a consequence of Lemma 1 we obtain the following theorem.

###### Theorem 1.

For every $`𝒜Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, the map $`E_𝒜:Spec(Cyl(𝒜))Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, $`E_𝒜(\phi )=H_\phi `$, with $`H_\phi :\mathrm{\Lambda }G`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j;\lambda }\left(H_\phi \right)=\phi \left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j;\lambda }\right)$$

for every representative function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j;\lambda }`$, is a continuous embedding and a homeomorphism onto $`\overline{𝒜}`$. The map $`E_𝒜`$ is onto $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ if and only if the Approximation Condition on $`𝒜`$ is satisfied.

In this setting, the Approximation Condition on $`𝒜`$ is conveniently stated in the following way:

For every $`H`$ in $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, every finite family $`\{\lambda _k\}_{k=1,\mathrm{},r}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`ϵ>0`$, there exists $`H_A𝒜`$ such that

$$H\left(\lambda _k\right)H_A\left(\lambda _k\right)<ϵk=1,\mathrm{},r.$$

The condition can be also restated as follows:

For every $`H`$ in $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, every finite system of representative functions $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_{i_k,j_k;\lambda _k}\}_{k=1,\mathrm{},r}`$ and $`ϵ>0`$, there exists $`H_A𝒜`$ such that

$$\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_{i_k,j_k;\lambda _k}\left(H\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_{i_k,j_k;\lambda _k}\left(H_A\right)\right|<ϵk=1,\mathrm{},r.$$

The Tychonoff and the $`w^{}`$-topology agree on $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$. In the first version of the Approximation Condition, the density of $`𝒜`$ in $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ is expressed in terms of the usual basis for the Tychonoff topology, in the second one using a basis for the $`w^{}`$-topology.

From now on, we denote $`M\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ shortly by $`M`$ and consider the natural continuous right action of the compact group $`G^M`$ on $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ given by

$$(H.g)\left(\lambda \right)=g^1\left(r\left(\lambda \right)\right)H\left(\lambda \right)g\left(s\left(\lambda \right)\right).$$

The dual isometric action on $`C\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)`$ is defined by $`gF\left(H\right)=F(H.g^1)`$ for every $`HHom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ and $`gG^M`$. For a $`G^M`$-invariant $`𝒜Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, we denote by $`Cyl_{G^M}\left(𝒜\right)`$ the $`^{}`$-subalgebra of the $`G^M`$-invariant functions of $`Cyl\left(𝒜\right)`$.

By Lemma 2 we obtain the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a $`G^M`$-invariant subset of $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$. The map $`I_𝒜:Spec(Cyl_{G^M}(𝒜))Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)/G^M`$, $`I_𝒜(\phi )=[H_\phi ]`$, where $`H_\phi `$ satisfies

$$F\left(H_\phi \right)=\phi \left(R_𝒜F\right)F𝒮Cyl_{G^M}\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)$$

for $`𝒮`$ separating on $`(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)/G^M`$, does not depend on $`𝒮`$ and is a continuous embedding and a homeomorphism onto $`\overline{𝒜}/G^M`$. The map $`I_𝒜`$ is onto $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)/G^M`$ if and only if the Approximation Condition on $`𝒜`$ is satisfied.

In the special case that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a group, the set of units is just $`\left\{e\right\}`$, so $`G^M=G`$ and its action on $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ is given by $`(H.a)\left(\lambda \right)=a^1H\left(\lambda \right)a=Ad_{a^1}H\left(\lambda \right)`$ for $`aG`$. For any $`AdG`$-invariant $`𝒜`$, we have

$$Spec\left(Cyl_{AdG}\left(𝒜\right)\right)=Spec\left(Cyl\left(𝒜\right)\right)/AdG=\overline{𝒜}/AdG.$$

A natural choice for $`𝒮`$ in Theorem 2 is $`cyl_{G^M}\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)`$, the \*-subalgebra of the $`G^M`$-invariant cylindrical functions. Let us show that $`cyl_{G^M}\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)`$ is separating on $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)/G^M`$.

###### Theorem 3.

Let $`dg`$ denote the normalized Haar measure on $`G^M`$.

i) The mean value map $`:C(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G))C_{G^M}(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G))`$ defined by

$$F=_{G^M}gF𝑑g$$

restricts to a continuous surjection from $`cyl(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G))`$ onto the $``$-subalgebra $`cyl_{G^M}(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G))`$ of $`G^M`$-invariant cylindrical functions.

ii) The $``$-algebra $`cyl_{G^M}(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G))`$ is separating on $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)/G^M`$.

Proof. i) The only non trivial point in the first statement is that the mean value map sends $`cyl\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)`$ into $`cyl_{G^M}\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)`$. Actually, for every cylindrical function $`F=F_{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _m;f}`$ we have

$$\left(gF\right)\left(H\right)=f(g\left(r\left(\lambda _1\right)\right)H\left(\lambda _1\right)g^1\left(s\left(\lambda _1\right)\right),\mathrm{},g\left(r\left(\lambda _m\right)\right)H\left(\lambda _m\right)g^1\left(s\left(\lambda _m\right)\right)).$$

The elements of $`G^{2m}`$ of the form $`(g\left(r\left(\lambda _1\right)\right),g\left(s\left(\lambda _1\right)\right),\mathrm{}.,g\left(r\left(\lambda _m\right)\right),g\left(s\left(\lambda _m\right)\right))`$ for some $`gG^M`$ form a subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ isomorphic to $`G^d`$, where $`d`$ denotes the number of distinct units in $`M`$ which are of the form $`r\left(\lambda _i\right)`$ or $`s\left(\lambda _i\right)`$ for some $`i=1,..,m`$. Therefore

$$F\left(H\right)=_{G^M}f(g\left(r\left(\lambda _1\right)\right)H\left(\lambda _1\right)g^1\left(s\left(\lambda _1\right)\right),\mathrm{},g\left(r\left(\lambda _m\right)\right)H\left(\lambda _m\right)g^1\left(s\left(\lambda _m\right)\right))𝑑g$$

$$=_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(a^1f\right)(H\left(\lambda _1\right),\mathrm{}.,H\left(\lambda _m\right))da$$

where for $`aG^{2m}`$, $`a^1f`$ is given by $`a^1f(g_1,\mathrm{},g_m)=f(a_1g_1a_2^1,\mathrm{},a_{2m1}g_ma_{2m})`$ and $`da`$ denotes the Haar measure on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }G^d`$. Thus $`F`$ is a cylindrical function, since $`F=F_{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _m;\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$, given by $`\stackrel{~}{f}(g_1,\mathrm{},g_m)=_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(a^1f\right)(g_1,\mathrm{}.,g_m)da`$, is continuous.

ii) Let $`F_ncyl\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)`$ converge to $`FCyl_{G^M}\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)`$. Then $`F_nF=F`$, proving that $`cyl_{G^M}\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)`$ is dense in $`Cyl_{G^M}\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)`$. This is equivalent to say that $`cyl_{G^M}\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)`$ is separating. $`\mathrm{}`$

Fix a point $``$ in $`M`$. The elements $`\lambda `$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ satisfying $`s\left(\lambda \right)=r\left(\lambda \right)=`$ form a group, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}`$. The restriction map defines a continuous projection

$$𝒫_{}:Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},G),$$

which is equivariant w.r.t. the action of $`G^M`$; actually $`\left(Hg\right)_{}=Ad_{g()^1}H_{}`$, where $`H_{}=𝒫_{}\left(H\right)`$.

We say that $`M`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-connected if , for every $`s,rM`$, there exists $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`s=s\left(\lambda \right)`$ and $`r=r\left(\lambda \right)`$. If $`M`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-connected, $`𝒫_{}`$ is onto and quotients to a homeomorphism

$$𝒬_{}:Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)/G^MHom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},G)/AdG.$$

This is proved following an argument of Velhinho in . Let $`G_{}^M`$ the compact subgroup of maps $`gG^M`$ such that $`g()=1`$. For every $`xM`$, we fix a unique $`e_x\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`s\left(e_x\right)=`$ and $`r\left(e_x\right)=x`$, choosing $`e_{}=`$. To every $`H`$ we associate $`g_HG_{}^M`$ by defining $`g_H\left(x\right)=H\left(e_x\right)`$. The map

$$\mathrm{\Theta }:Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},G)\times G_{}^M,H(H_{},g_H)$$

is a homeomorphism. Actually, $`𝒫_{}`$ is onto since for $`hHom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},G)`$ we define $`HHom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ such that $`H_{}=h`$ by $`H\left(\lambda \right)=h\left(e_{r\left(\lambda \right)}^1\lambda e_{s\left(\lambda \right)}\right)`$. The map $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is continuous and it is onto since, for every $`HHom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ and $`gG_{}^M`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Theta }(H.\left(g_Hg^1\right))=(H_{},g)`$. The inverse is defined by $`(H_{},g)H^{}.\left(g_H^{}g^1\right)`$ for any $`H^{}`$ such that $`𝒫_{}\left(H^{}\right)=H_{}`$.

A continuous action of $`G^M`$ on $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},G)\times G_{}^M`$ is given by

$$(H_{},g^{}).g=(Ad_{g^1()}H_{},R_g\left(g^{}\right)),$$

where $`R_g\left(g^{}\right)\left(x\right)=g\left(x\right)^1g^{}\left(x\right)g()`$. It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ quotients to the wanted homeomorphism $`𝒬_{}`$.

If $`𝒜`$ is $`G^M`$-invariant, then $`𝒜_{}=𝒫_{}\left(𝒜\right)`$ is $`AdG`$-invariant; the restriction of $`𝒬_{}`$ is a homeomorphism of $`𝒜/G^M`$ onto $`𝒜_{}/AdG`$ and, obviously, of $`\overline{𝒜/G^M}`$ onto $`\overline{𝒜_{}/AdG}`$. By duality we obtain the isomorphism

$$Cyl_{G^M}\left(𝒜\right)Cyl_{AdG}\left(𝒜_{}\right).$$

If the Approximation Condition on $`𝒜`$ is satisfied, we get

$$Spec\left(Cyl_{G^M}\left(𝒜\right)\right)Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},G)/AdG.$$

We take now into account the case that $`\overline{𝒜}`$ is $`G^M`$-invariant but $`𝒜`$ is not necessarily $`G^M`$-invariant.

###### Theorem 4.

If $`\overline{𝒜}`$ is $`G^M`$-invariant and $`𝒜_{}`$ is $`AdG`$-invariant, then

$$Spec\left(Cyl_{G^M}\left(𝒜\right)\right)\overline{𝒜}/G^M\overline{𝒜_{}/AdG}Spec\left(Cyl_{AdG}\left(𝒜_{}\right)\right)$$

where $`Cyl_{G^M}(𝒜)`$ denotes the $`^{}`$-algebra of restrictions to $`𝒜`$ of functions in $`Cyl_{G^M}(\overline{𝒜})`$. Moreover $`\overline{𝒜}_{}=Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},G)`$ if and only if $`\overline{𝒜}=Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$.

Proof. By definition, $`Cyl_{G^M}\left(𝒜\right)`$ is isomorphic to $`Cyl_{G^M}\left(\overline{𝒜}\right)`$ whose spectrum is $`\overline{𝒜}/G^M`$, since $`\overline{𝒜}`$ is $`G^M`$-invariant. The restriction of $`𝒬_{}`$ to $`\overline{𝒜}/G^M`$ is a homeomorphism onto $`\left(\overline{𝒜}\right)_{}/AdG`$. By continuity of $`𝒫_{}`$, the set $`\left(\overline{𝒜}\right)_{}`$ is closed, hence the relation $`𝒜_{}\left(\overline{𝒜}\right)_{}\overline{𝒜_{}}`$ implies that $`\left(\overline{𝒜}\right)_{}=\overline{𝒜_{}}`$. Moreover the $`AdG`$-invariance of $`𝒜_{}`$ gives $`\overline{𝒜_{}}/AdG=\overline{𝒜_{}/AdG}`$. Hence we have $`𝒬_{}\left(\overline{𝒜}/G^M\right)=\overline{𝒜_{}/AdG}`$.

To prove the second statement, let $`\overline{𝒜_{}}=Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},G)`$. This is equivalent to $`\overline{𝒜}_{}/AdG=\left(\overline{𝒜}\right)_{}/AdG=Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},G)/AdG`$. By the homeomorphism $`𝒬_{}`$ we obtain $`\overline{𝒜}/G^M=Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)/G^M`$. The $`G^M`$-invariance of $`\overline{𝒜}`$ gives $`\overline{𝒜}=Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3. The Wilson Algebras

In this section $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will be a group and $`G`$ a closed subgroup of $`U\left(𝗇\right)`$. To every $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we associate the cylindrical map $`T_\lambda `$ on $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ defined by

$$T_\lambda \left(H\right)=\frac{1}{𝗇}Tr\left(H\left(\lambda \right)\right).$$

These functions are called Wilson functions. To every $`𝒜Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ we associate the Wilson $`^{}`$-algebra of $`𝒜`$, denoted by $`_𝒜`$, which is the $`^{}`$-algebra generated by the Wilson functions restricted to $`𝒜`$.

If $`H,H^{}Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ are equivalent representations of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we have $`T_\lambda \left(H\right)=T_\lambda \left(H^{}\right)`$ for every $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Besides, it is well known that equivalent homomorphisms of any group in $`U\left(𝗇\right)`$ are unitarily equivalent. So we consider the quotient of $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ by unitary equivalence. For $`HHom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ we denote by $`\widehat{H}`$ its unitary equivalence class and by $`\widehat{𝒜}`$ the set of unitary equivalence classes of homomorphisms in $`𝒜`$.

The Wilson functions are separating on $`\widehat{Hom}(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, as follows from the next proposition.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a group, $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ in $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$. If $`T_\lambda (H)=T_\lambda (H^{})`$ for every $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, then $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ are unitarily equivalent.

Proof. To begin with, let us consider a topological group $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and continuous homomorphisms. We recall that there exists a compact (Hausdorff) group $`Cpt\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$, called the associated compact group of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and a homomorphism $`\varkappa :\mathrm{\Lambda }Cpt\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ with dense range such that the following universality property holds: to any $`G`$-valued continuous representation $`H`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ one can associate a unique representation $`K:Cpt\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)G`$, such that $`H=K\varkappa `$ (see e.g. ). By density of $`\varkappa \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ in $`Cpt\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$, the equality $`T_\lambda \left(H\right)=T_\lambda \left(H^{}\right)`$ for every $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ implies that $`Tr\left(K\left(\xi \right)\right)=Tr\left(K^{}\left(\xi \right)\right)`$, for every $`\xi Cpt\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$. By a well known theorem on the representations of compact groups (see e.g. ) $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ are equivalent. This implies that $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ are equivalent, hence unitarily equivalent.

If no topology is assumed on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we give $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the topology induced by all homomorphisms $`H:\mathrm{\Lambda }G`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ becomes a topological group and $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ continuous representations. Therefore we are reduced to the previous case. $`\mathrm{}`$

The Proposition 2 assures that $`_𝒜`$ is separating on $`\widehat{𝒜}`$, hence $`\widehat{𝒜}`$ is densely embedded in $`Spec\left(_𝒜\right)`$. To characterize $`Spec\left(_𝒜\right)`$ it is convenient to consider $`𝒜`$ as a subset of $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },U\left(𝗇\right))`$ and identify $`\widehat{𝒜}`$ with the subset of $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },U\left(𝗇\right))/AdU\left(𝗇\right)`$ obtained by applying to $`𝒜`$ the projection $`\widehat{}:Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },U\left(𝗇\right))Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },U\left(𝗇\right))/AdU\left(𝗇\right)`$. The Wilson functions are separating on $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },U\left(𝗇\right))/AdU\left(𝗇\right)`$, so they generate the algebra of continuous functions on $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },U\left(𝗇\right))/AdU\left(𝗇\right)`$. Then, by Lemma 1, $`Spec\left(_𝒜\right)`$ is homeomorphic to the closure of $`\widehat{𝒜}`$ in $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },U\left(𝗇\right))/AdU\left(𝗇\right)`$.

Wilson functions become relevant in gauge theories when $`𝒜`$ is $`AdG`$-invariant and $`\widehat{𝒜}=𝒜/AdG`$. To obtain this identification we have to specialize the group $`G`$. One can assume that for every $`aG`$ there exist $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`H𝒜`$ such that $`a=H\left(\lambda \right)`$. This is always satisfied in the cases arising in gauge theories. Under this assumption the condition $`\widehat{𝒜}=𝒜/AdG`$ implies that $`G`$ is a normal subgroup of $`U\left(𝗇\right)`$.

Conversely, if a group $`G`$ is a closed normal subgroup of $`U\left(𝗇\right)`$, one gets $`\widehat{Hom}(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)=Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)/AdG`$. This is a consequence of the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3.

Let $`G`$ a closed normal subgroup $`U(𝗇)`$. Then the conjugation classes w.r.t. $`Ad_{U(𝗇)}`$ and $`Ad_G`$ coincide on $`G`$.

Proof. The smooth group homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:U\left(1\right)\times SU\left(𝗇\right)U\left(𝗇\right),\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha ,S)=\alpha S`$, is onto since, for $`UU\left(𝗇\right)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\delta ,\delta ^1U)=U`$ for every $`\delta U\left(1\right)`$ such that $`\delta ^𝗇=det\left(U\right)`$. As $`G`$ is a closed normal subgroup of $`U\left(𝗇\right)`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{G}=\mathrm{\Phi }^1\left(G\right)`$ is a compact normal subgroup of $`U\left(1\right)\times SU\left(𝗇\right)`$. Therefore $`\pi _s\left(\stackrel{~}{G}\right)`$ is a compact normal subgroup of $`SU\left(𝗇\right)`$, where $`\pi _s:U\left(1\right)\times SU\left(𝗇\right)SU\left(𝗇\right)`$ is the canonical projection. As $`SU\left(𝗇\right)`$ is simple, compact and connected, we have two cases:

i) $`\pi _s\left(\stackrel{~}{G}\right)=SU\left(𝗇\right)`$;

ii) $`\pi _s\left(\stackrel{~}{G}\right)`$ is a (finite) central subgroup of $`SU\left(𝗇\right)`$.

We discuss separately these cases.

i) Let $`UU\left(𝗇\right)`$ of the form $`U=\alpha S`$ with $`\alpha U\left(1\right)`$ and $`SSU\left(𝗇\right)`$. By assumption i), there exists $`(\beta ,S)\stackrel{~}{G}`$, for some $`\beta U\left(1\right)`$, so that $`h=\beta S`$ belongs to $`G`$. For every $`VU\left(𝗇\right)`$ we have $`Ad_UV=Ad_SV=Ad_hV.`$

ii) If $`\pi _s\left(\stackrel{~}{G}\right)`$ is a central subgroup of $`SU\left(𝗇\right)`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is a central subgroup of $`U\left(1\right)\times SU\left(𝗇\right)`$, so that $`G`$ is a central subgroup of $`U\left(𝗇\right)`$. Thus the adjoint actions on $`G`$ are both trivial. $`\mathrm{}`$

Then, let $`G`$ be a closed normal subgroup of $`U\left(𝗇\right)`$. The Wilson functions become a separating set of cylindrical functions on $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)/AdG=\widehat{Hom}(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, so they generate the algebra $`C_{AdG}\left(Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)\right)`$. For every $`AdG`$-invariant subset $`𝒜`$ of $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, we have $`\widehat{𝒜}=𝒜/AdG`$ and $`_𝒜=Cyl_{AdG}\left(𝒜\right)`$.

The density of $`\widehat{𝒜}`$ in $`\widehat{Hom}(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ is assured by the Wilson Approximation Condition on $`𝒜`$, formulated as follows:

For every $`H`$ in $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, every finite family $`\{\lambda _k\}_{k=1,\mathrm{},r}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`ϵ>0`$, there exists $`H_A𝒜`$ such that

$$\left|TrH\left(\lambda _k\right)TrH_A\left(\lambda _k\right)\right|<ϵk=1,\mathrm{},r.$$

Thus we have obtained the following theorem.

###### Theorem 5.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a group, $`G`$ a closed normal subgroup of $`U(𝗇)`$ and $`𝒜`$ an $`AdG`$-invariant subset of $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$. Then:

i) $`_𝒜`$ agrees with $`Cyl_{AdG}(𝒜)`$;

ii) the map $`I_𝒜:Spec(_𝒜)\widehat{Hom}(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$, $`I_𝒜(\phi )=[H_\phi ]`$, where $`H_\phi `$ satisfies

$$\phi \left(T_\lambda \right)=\frac{1}{𝗇}TrH_\phi \left(\lambda \right)\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda },$$

is a homeomorphism onto the closure of $`\widehat{𝒜}`$ in $`\widehat{Hom}(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$;

iii) the embedding $`I_𝒜`$ is onto $`\widehat{Hom}(\mathrm{\Lambda },G)`$ if and only if the Wilson Approximation Condition is satisfied.

## 4. Application to Gauge Theories

Now we discuss the applications to gauge theories of the statements proved in the above sections.

Let $`M`$ be a connected, orientable paracompact smooth manifold with $`dim\left(M\right)>1`$. Then $`M`$ admits a compatible real analytic structure, which is unique up to diffeomorphisms.

We will start considering continuous piecewise smooth (or piecewise analytic) parametrized paths and loops $`\gamma :[0,1]M`$. Paths $`\gamma `$ and $`\lambda `$ with $`\gamma \left(1\right)=\lambda \left(0\right)`$ can be composed to get $`\lambda \gamma :[0,1]M`$ defined by

$$\left(\lambda \gamma \right)\left(t\right)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\gamma \left(2t\right)\hfill & \mathrm{if}\hfill & 0t<1/2\hfill \\ \lambda \left(2t1\right)\hfill & \mathrm{if}\hfill & 1/2t1.\hfill \end{array}$$

The inverse $`\gamma ^1`$ is defined by $`\gamma ^1\left(t\right)=\gamma \left(1t\right)`$.

By immediate retracing we mean a parametrized piecewise smooth path $`\gamma `$ which factorizes as

$$\gamma =\underset{i}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\gamma _i\gamma _i^1\right).$$

Equivalence of piecewise smooth (or analytic) parametrized paths w.r.t. order preserving piecewise smooth (or piecewise analytic) reparametrizations and up to immediate retracings will be called elementary equivalence. A piecewise smooth (analytic) path is an elementary equivalence class of piecewise smooth (piecewise analytic) parametrized paths. For applications to gauge theories it is convenient to consider just paths which are piecewise smoothly immersed or constant. Paths can be composed and inverted, and form a groupoid, denoted by $`\mathrm{𝖯𝖺𝗍𝗁}\left(M\right)`$ in the piecewise analytic case and by $`Path\left(M\right)`$ in the piecewise smooth immersive case. Obviously, one could also consider weaker differentiability conditions on paths and more general groupoids, as in  and .

Fix a base point $``$ in $`M`$. A piecewise smooth (analytic) loop based on $``$ is an elementary equivalence class of piecewise smooth (analytic) parametrized paths $`\gamma `$ with $`\gamma \left(0\right)=\gamma \left(1\right)=`$. Loops based on $``$ form a group, denoted by $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝗈𝗉}_{}\left(M\right)`$ in the analytic case and by $`Loop_{}\left(M\right)`$ in the smooth immersive case. The unit is the constant loop, also denoted by $``$. If the base points are changed, one obtains isomorphic groups.

Let us consider now the trivial bundle $`M\times G`$, where $`G`$ is a connected closed subgroup of $`U\left(𝗇\right)`$. For a smooth connection $`A`$ on $`M\times G`$, the holonomy map $`H_A`$ is defined, which associates to a path $`\lambda `$ the parallel transport along $`\lambda `$, identified with an element $`H_A\left(\lambda \right)`$ of $`G`$. We can identify the set $`𝒜`$ of smooth connections with the set of their associated holonomy maps on $`\mathrm{𝖯𝖺𝗍𝗁}\left(M\right)`$, on $`Path\left(M\right)`$  or even on more general groupoids.

Connections induce another equivalence relation on parametrized paths (of any class), called holonomy equivalence, where parametrized paths $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ are holonomy equivalent if

$$\lambda ^{}\left(0\right)=\lambda \left(0\right),\lambda ^{}\left(1\right)=\lambda \left(1\right)\mathrm{and}H_A\left(\lambda ^{}\lambda ^1\right)=eA𝒜.$$

The holonomy equivalence depends, in principle, on $`G`$ and is weaker than elementary equivalence. For every connected non-solvable compact (hence non Abelian) Lie group $`G`$, the holonomy equivalence agrees with elementary equivalence in the analytic and in the smooth immersive case ,. In the smooth non-immersive case this is no longer true: a simple example of a smooth loop giving a non trivial elementary equivalence class, but with trivial holonomies for any $`G`$, has been given in .

For $`G=T^n`$, a torus in dimension $`n,n1`$, the two equivalence relations are different. However, the holonomy equivalence does not depend on $`n`$. In the Abelian case, the group $`Loop_{}\left(M\right)`$ quotients to a group, we will denote by $`Hoop_{}\left(M\right)`$, since holonomy equivalence classes of loops were first introduced in  and called hoops. Holonomy equivalence classes of paths in $`Path\left(M\right)`$ form a groupoid, which we analogously denote by $`Hath\left(M\right)`$.

The group of gauge transformations is the group $`Gau=C^{\mathrm{}}(M,G)`$, acting on $`𝒜`$ by $`A.g=g^1Ag+g^1dg`$ where $`d`$ denotes the exterior derivative. The corresponding action on parallel transports is given by

$$H_{A.g}\left(\gamma \right)=g\left(\gamma \left(1\right)\right)^1H_A\left(\gamma \right)g\left(\gamma \left(0\right)\right)\gamma Path\left(M\right)$$

and is the restriction to $`Gau`$ of the action of $`G^M`$. Of course, $`𝒜`$ is not $`G^M`$-invariant, however its $`Gau`$-invariance implies that $`𝒜_{}`$ is $`AdG`$-invariant. Since $`Gau`$ is dense in $`G^M`$ and the action of $`G^M`$ on $`Hom(Path\left(M\right),G)`$ is continuous, the $`Gau`$-invariance of $`𝒜`$ implies the $`G^M`$-invariance of $`\overline{𝒜}`$. We recall that every function $`f`$ in $`Cyl\left(𝒜\right)`$ can be uniquely extended to a continuous function on $`\overline{𝒜}`$, which is $`G^M`$-invariant if $`f`$ is $`Gau`$-invariant. As a consequence, $`Cyl_{Gau}\left(𝒜\right)=Cyl_{G^M}\left(𝒜\right)`$, in the notations of Theorem 4.

The projection $`𝒫_{}:Hom(Path\left(M\right),G)Hom(Loop_{}\left(M\right),G)`$ quotients to a bijection

$$𝒜/Gau𝒜_{}/AdG$$

(see ). Analogous statements can be done using $`\mathrm{𝖯𝖺𝗍𝗁}\left(M\right)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝗈𝗉}_{}\left(M\right)`$ and also for the weaker differentiability conditions on paths.

In the non-perturbative quantization program a standing point is to give a compactification of the configuration space $`𝒜/Gau`$, i.e. to embed the configuration space in the spectrum of some $`AdG`$-invariant cylindrical algebra on $`𝒜_{}`$. A compactification of $`𝒜`$ can be achieved by the embedding in the spectrum of the cylindrical algebra of $`𝒜`$. One is interested in studying the consistence of these compactifications.

The analytic case.

In the analytic case $`𝒜`$ is viewed as a subset of $`Hom(\mathrm{𝖯𝖺𝗍𝗁}\left(M\right),G)`$. To distinguish this case from the smooth one, we will denote by $`\mathrm{𝖢𝗒𝗅}\left(𝒜\right)`$ the analytic cylindrical algebra and by $`\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗅}\left(𝒜_{}\right)`$ the analytic holonomy algebra, i.e. the Wilson $`^{}`$-algebra of $`𝒜_{}`$.

In this setting the following strong version of the Approximation Condition on $`𝒜`$ is assured:

For every finite set of paths $`\{\gamma _k\}_{k=1,\mathrm{},r}`$ and every homomorphism $`H:\mathrm{𝖯𝖺𝗍𝗁}(M)G`$ there exists a smooth connection $`A`$ on $`M\times G`$ such that

$$H\left(\gamma _k\right)=H_A\left(\gamma _k\right)k=1,\mathrm{},r.$$

The property has been proved in  for $`\gamma _k\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝗈𝗉}_{}\left(M\right)`$ ( see also ) and the proof extends easily to $`\gamma _k\mathrm{𝖯𝖺𝗍𝗁}\left(M\right)`$. Owing to Theorem 1 we can conclude that

$$Spec\left(\mathrm{𝖢𝗒𝗅}\left(𝒜\right)\right)\overline{𝒜}=Hom(\mathrm{𝖯𝖺𝗍𝗁}\left(M\right),G).$$

As a consequence, we obtain that

$$Spec\left(\mathrm{𝖢𝗒𝗅}_{Gau}\left(𝒜\right)\right)Hom(\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝗈𝗉}_{}\left(M\right),G)/AdG\overline{𝒜/Gau}.$$

In the special case that $`G`$ is a closed normal subgroup of $`U_𝗇`$, the unitary equivalence classes of $`G`$-valued homomorphisms agree with their conjugation classes, so that $`𝒜/Gau\widehat{𝒜_{}}=𝒜_{}/AdG`$. By Theorem 5 we get

$$Spec\left(\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗅}\left(𝒜_{}\right)\right)\widehat{Hom}(\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝗈𝗉}_{}\left(M\right),G)=\overline{𝒜/Gau}.$$

Dually, we have that

$$\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗅}\left(𝒜_{}\right)=\mathrm{𝖢𝗒𝗅}_{AdG}\left(𝒜_{}\right)\mathrm{𝖢𝗒𝗅}_{Gau}\left(𝒜\right).$$

However, the analytic case is not really satisfactory from the physical point of view, since for applications to the loop quantum gravity one needs to consider diffeomorphism invariance on the closure of $`𝒜/Gau`$ while $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝗈𝗉}_{}\left(M\right)`$ is invariant only w.r.t. analytic diffeomorphisms.

The Abelian smooth immersive case.

Ashtekar and Lewandowski studied in  the case of $`G=U\left(1\right)`$, working in the piecewise $`C^1`$ setting. They denoted by $`𝒢`$ the group of hoops obtained by the holonomy equivalence classes of piecewise $`C^1`$ loops based on $``$ and considered in the compact space $`Hom(𝒢,U\left(1\right))`$ the subset $`𝒜_{}`$ obtained by the holonomy maps of the smooth connections. They proved that

$$\overline{𝒜_{}}=Hom(𝒢,U\left(1\right)).$$

Their proof works also in the case of a general torus $`T^n`$ in any dimension $`n`$ and for every differentiability class of loops and hoops. It works also in the smooth immersive category, when the group $`𝒢`$ is replaced by the group $`Hoop_{}\left(M\right)`$, so that

$$\overline{𝒜_{}}=Hom(Hoop_{}\left(M\right),T^n).$$

Let us consider the smooth connections $`𝒜`$ as a subset of $`Hom(Hath\left(M\right),T^n)`$. The gauge invariance of $`𝒜`$ implies the $`G^M`$-invariance of $`\overline{𝒜}`$. Moreover, $`𝒜_{}`$ is $`AdG`$-invariant. By the last statement in Theorem 4 we obtain that

$$\overline{𝒜}=Hom(Hath\left(M\right),T^n)$$

and by $`𝒜/Gau𝒜_{}`$ we have

$$\overline{𝒜/Gau}Hom(Hoop_{}\left(M\right),T^n).$$

The above quoted result allows one to characterize also the closure of $`𝒜`$ in the space $`Hom(Path\left(M\right),T^n)`$: we can identify $`Hom(Hath\left(M\right),T^n)`$ with the closed subgroup of $`Hom(Path\left(M\right),T^n)`$, consisting of the homomorphisms which are constant on each holonomy equivalence class of paths, obtaining

$$\overline{𝒜}=Hom(Hath\left(M\right),T^n)Hom(Path\left(M\right),T^n).$$

Fleischhack proves in  that $`\overline{𝒜}`$ is a proper subset in $`Hom(Path\left(M\right),T^n)`$. Analogously, one recognizes that $`Hom(Hoop_{}\left(M\right),T^n)`$ is a closed proper subgroup of $`Hom(Loop_{}\left(M\right),T^n)`$ and agrees with the closure of $`𝒜_{}`$ in $`Hom(Loop_{}\left(M\right),T^n)`$.

In contrast, in the analytic case it is well known  that the group $`\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗈𝗉}_{}\left(M\right)`$ is the quotient of $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝗈𝗉}_{}\left(M\right)`$ by its commutator group, so that $`Hom(\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝗈𝗉}_{}\left(M\right),T^n)Hom(\mathrm{𝖧𝗈𝗈𝗉}_{}\left(M\right),T^n)`$ and, analogously, $`Hom(\mathrm{𝖯𝖺𝗍𝗁}\left(M\right),T^n)Hom(\mathrm{𝖧𝖺𝗍𝗁}\left(M\right),T^n)`$.

The general smooth immersive case.

Our aim is to characterize the closure of $`𝒜`$ in the smooth immersive case for a connected compact Lie group $`G`$. Fleischhack has proved that $`𝒜`$ is dense in $`Hom(Path\left(M\right),G)`$ only for connected and semisimple $`G`$ . The same author will discuss denseness of connections in the non-immersive case and for more general categories of immersive paths in .

The space $`\overline{𝒜}`$ was investigated in the smooth immersive case for any connected compact Lie group $`G`$ by Baez and Sawin in . They associate to every finite ordered family $`C=(c_1,\mathrm{},c_r)`$ of piecewise immersed or constant paths the map $`p_C:𝒜G^r`$, $`H_C\left(A\right)=(H_{c_1}\left(A\right),\mathrm{},H_{c_r}\left(A\right))`$ and studied its range $`𝒜_C`$. They found special families of independent paths, the webs, for which this range can be characterized. We recall that a family $`C`$ of paths is said to be independent if a path $`\lambda `$ in $`C`$ cannot be decomposed using other paths in $`C`$ or their inverses. A family $`C`$ depends on another family $`C^{}`$ if every path in $`C`$ can be obtained from paths in $`C^{}`$ or their inverses by using the path composition.

The definition of a web is quite involved and we refer to the quoted authors. Their main result is that every finite family $`C`$ of paths depends on a web. Moreover it was proved in  (see also ) that if $`G`$ is semisimple, for every web $`W`$ the range $`𝒜_W`$ is exactly $`G^r`$, where $`r`$ is the cardinality of $`W`$.

Joining the above results one obtains that

$$\overline{𝒜}=Hom(Path\left(M\right),G)$$

for every connected compact semisimple Lie group $`G`$.

Let now $`G`$ be isomorphic to the product of a torus $`T^n`$ and a connected compact semisimple Lie group $`S`$. Then one obtains that

$$Hom(Path\left(M\right),G)=Hom(Path\left(M\right),T^n)\times Hom(Path\left(M\right),S)$$

and that

$$Hom(Loop_{}\left(M\right),G)/AdG=Hom(Loop_{}\left(M\right),T^n)\times Hom(Loop_{}\left(M\right),S)/AdS.$$

The Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ splits as $`𝔤=𝐑^n+𝔰`$, so that a connection $`A`$ on $`M\times G`$ can be identified with a couple $`A_{T^n}`$ and $`A_S`$ of 1-forms on $`M`$ taking values in the Lie algebras $`𝐑^n`$ and $`𝔰`$ of $`T^n`$ and $`S`$, respectively. It follows from the definition of path ordered integral that $`H_A\left(\lambda \right)=H_{A_{T^n}}\left(\lambda \right)H_{A_S}\left(\lambda \right)`$ for every $`\lambda Path\left(M\right)`$.

###### Theorem 6.

Let $`G=T^n\times S`$ the product of a torus $`T^n`$ and a connected compact semisimple Lie group $`S`$. The closure of the set $`𝒜`$ in $`Hom(Path(M),G)`$ is $`Hom(Hath(M),T^n)\times Hom(Path(M),S)`$. The closure of $`𝒜/Gau`$ in $`Hom(Loop_{}(M),G)/AdG`$ is $`Hom(Hoop_{}(M),T^n)\times Hom(Loop_{}(M),S)/AdS`$.

Proof. This is an immediate consequence of the above remarks and of the results in the Abelian and the semisimple cases, respectively. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us recall that every compact connected Lie group $`G`$ is of the form $`\left(T_0\times S\right)/K`$ where $`T_0`$ is the identity component of the centre of $`G`$, $`S`$ is a connected compact semisimple Lie group and $`K`$ is a finite group contained in the centre of $`T_0\times S`$. By the general theory of compact Abelian Lie groups, $`T_0`$ is trivial or it is a torus. We denote by $`p_K`$ the projection $`T_0\times SG`$ and by $`\left(p_K\right)_{}:Hom(Path\left(M\right),T_0\times S)Hom(Path\left(M\right),G)`$ the map defined by $`\left(p_K\right)_{}\left(H\right)=p_KH`$.

The case where $`T_0`$ is a torus is discussed in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 7.

Let $`G`$ be a compact connected Lie group represented in the form $`G=(T^n\times S)/K`$, as above. The closure of $`𝒜`$ in $`Hom(Path(M),G)`$ is $`(p_K)_{}(Hom(Hath(M),T^n)\times Hom(Path(M),S))`$. The closure of $`𝒜/Gau`$ in $`Hom(Loop_{}(M),G)/AdG`$ is $`(p_K)_{}(Hom(Hoop_{}(M),T^n)\times Hom(Loop_{}(M),S))/AdS)`$.

Proof. The commutative diagram holds:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & Hom(Path\left(M\right),T^n\times S)\\ \left(p_K\right)_{}& & \left(p_K\right)_{}\\ 𝒜& & Hom(Path\left(M\right),G)\end{array}$$

where $``$ denotes the space of holonomies of smooth connections on $`M\times \left(T^n\times S\right)`$. Since the Lie algebras $`𝐑^n+𝔰`$ and $`𝔤`$ are isomorphic, the bundles $`M\times \left(T^n\times S\right)`$ and $`M\times G`$ have isomorphic connection one-forms, hence $`\left(p_K\right)_{}\left(\right)=𝒜`$.

The map $`\left(p_K\right)_{}`$ is continuous in the Tychonoff topologies and is closed, since $`Hom(Path\left(M\right),T^n\times S)`$ is compact. Therefore $`\left(p_K\right)_{}\left(\overline{}\right)=\overline{\left(p_K\right)_{}\left(\right)}=\overline{𝒜}`$. Then we use Theorem 6.

To prove the second statement, we have to apply analogous arguments to the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{}/AdS& & Hom(Loop_{}\left(M\right),T^n\times S)/AdS\\ \left(p_K\right)_{}& & \left(p_K\right)_{}\\ 𝒜_{}/AdG& & Hom(Loop_{}\left(M\right),G)/AdG.\end{array}$$

The only non trivial point to prove is that the (quotiented) projection $`\left(p_K\right)_{}:_{}/AdS𝒜_{}/AdG`$ is onto. This follows immediately by $`\left(p_K\right)_{}\left(_{}\right)=𝒜_{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We can characterize the spectra of the smooth immersive cylindrical algebras $`Cyl\left(𝒜\right)`$ and $`Cyl_{Gau}\left(𝒜\right)`$ and of the smooth immersive holonomy algebra $`Hol\left(𝒜_{}\right)`$.

For a semisimple connected compact Lie group $`G`$ we have

$$Spec\left(Cyl\left(𝒜\right)\right)\overline{𝒜}=Hom(Path\left(M\right),G)$$

and

$$Spec\left(Cyl_{Gau}\left(𝒜\right)\right)\overline{𝒜/Gau}=Hom(Loop_{}\left(M\right),G)/AdG.$$

In the special case that $`G`$ is a normal subgroup of $`U\left(𝗇\right)`$, e.g. if $`G`$ is $`SU\left(𝗇\right)`$, $`𝗇>1`$, we identify $`Hol\left(𝒜_{}\right)`$ with $`Cyl_{Gau}\left(𝒜\right)`$ and we have

$$Spec\left(Hol\left(𝒜_{}\right)\right)\overline{𝒜/Gau}=\widehat{Hom}(Loop_{}\left(M\right),G).$$

For $`G=T^n\times S`$, with semisimple $`S`$, we have

$$Spec\left(Cyl\left(𝒜\right)\right)=Hom(Hath\left(M\right),T^n)\times Hom(Path\left(M\right),S)$$

and

$$Spec\left(Cyl_{Gau}\left(𝒜\right)\right)=Hom(Hoop_{}\left(M\right),T^n)\times Hom(Loop_{}\left(M\right),S)/AdS.$$

Finally, for $`G=\left(T^n\times S\right)/K`$, as above, we have

$$Spec\left(Cyl\left(𝒜\right)\right)=\left(p_K\right)_{}\left(Hom(Hath\left(M\right),T^n)\times Hom(Path\left(M\right),S)\right)$$

and

$$Spec\left(Cyl_{Gau}\left(𝒜\right)\right)=\left(p_K\right)_{}\left(Hom(Hoop_{}\left(M\right),T^n)\times Hom(Loop_{}\left(M\right),S)/AdS\right).$$

## 5. Non trivial bundles

We will extend the above results to the general case that $`𝒜`$ is the set of smooth connections of a non trivial principal bundle $`P(M,G)`$.

For $`x,yM`$ we denote by $`Eq(P_x,P_y)`$ the space of the $`G`$-equivariant maps from the fiber $`P_x`$ to the fiber $`P_y`$. This space consists of invertible maps and every choice of $`u_xP_x`$ and $`u_yP_y`$ defines a bijection of $`Eq(P_x,P_y)`$ onto $`G`$, so $`Eq(P_x,P_y)`$ becomes a compact space whose topology does not depend on the choice. The disjoint union $`Eq\left(P\right)=_{x,yM}Eq(P_x,P_y)`$ is a groupoid, since $`\varphi _{y,x}Eq(P_x,P_y)`$ and $`\varphi _{y^{},x^{}}Eq(P_x^{},P_y^{})`$ can be composed if $`y=x^{}`$.

Let we denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ any of the groupoids of paths previously introduced and consider the space $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },Eq\left(P\right))`$ of groupoid homomorphisms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`Eq\left(P\right)`$. The space $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },Eq\left(P\right))`$ is compact as a closed subset of the product $`_{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}Eq(P_{s\left(\lambda \right)},P_{r\left(\lambda \right)})`$, which is compact in the Tychonoff topology.

We fix a point $``$ in $`M`$ and introduce the compact space $`_{}`$ of the maps $`\eta _{xM}Eq(P_{},P_x)`$ satisfying $`\eta ()=id`$. For every $`xM`$, we fix a path $`e_x\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`s\left(e_x\right)=`$ and $`r\left(e_x\right)=x`$, choosing $`e_{}=`$. To every $`HHom(\mathrm{\Lambda },Eq\left(P\right))`$ we associate the element $`\eta _H_{}`$ given by $`\eta _H\left(x\right)=H\left(e_x\right)`$.

Fixed a point $`u_{}`$ in $`P_{}`$, we identify the group $`Eq(P_{},P_{})`$ with the group $`G`$ and define the map $`𝒫_{}:Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },Eq\left(P\right))Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},G)`$ which associates to each $`HHom(\mathrm{\Lambda },Eq\left(P\right))`$ its restriction to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}`$.

As in section 2, the map $`H(𝒫_{}\left(H\right),\eta _H)`$ is a homeomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Theta }:Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },Eq\left(P\right))Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},G)\times _{}.$$

Let us recall that $`Gau\left(P\right)`$ is the group of the smooth sections of the fiber bundle $`_{xM}Eq(P_x,P_x)M`$, with fiber $`G`$. $`Gau\left(P\right)`$ is dense in the group $`\overline{Gau\left(P\right)}`$ of all sections of this bundle, a compact group isomorphic to $`G^M`$ (see ).

Actions of $`\overline{Gau\left(P\right)}`$ on $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },Eq\left(P\right))`$, on $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},G)`$ and on $`_{}`$ are defined as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\left(H\varphi \right)\left(\lambda \right)=\varphi \left(r\left(\lambda \right)\right)^1H\left(\lambda \right)\varphi \left(s\left(\lambda \right)\right)\hfill & HHom(\mathrm{\Lambda },Eq\left(P\right)),\hfill \\ \left(H_{}\varphi \right)\left(\gamma \right)=Ad_{\varphi ()^1}H_{}\left(\gamma \right)\hfill & H_{}Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},G),\hfill \\ \left(\eta \varphi \right)\left(x\right)=\varphi ^1\left(x\right)\eta \left(x\right)\varphi ()\hfill & \eta _{},\hfill \end{array}$$

for every $`\varphi \overline{Gau\left(P\right)}`$.

The map $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is equivariant and quotients to a homeomorphism of $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },Eq\left(P\right))/\overline{Gau\left(P\right)}`$ onto $`Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},G)/AdG`$.

Cylindrical functions and algebras can be treated for the space $`𝒜`$ of connections on a general bundle. A cylindrical function is a function of the form $`F_{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r;f}\left(A\right)=f(H_A\left(\lambda _1\right),\mathrm{},H_A\left(\lambda _r\right))`$, where $`f`$ is a continuous function on the compact space $`Eq(P_{s\left(\lambda _1\right)},P_{r\left(\lambda _1\right)})\times \mathrm{}\times Eq(P_{s\left(\lambda _r\right)},P_{r\left(\lambda _r\right)})`$.

Analogous embedding results to the ones given in section 2 and section 3 can be easily worked out for the spectrum of these cylindrical algebras. Analogously to the trivial case, we obtain

$$Spec\left(Cyl\left(𝒜\right)\right)\overline{𝒜}Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda },Eq\left(P\right)),$$

and

$$Spec\left(Cyl_{Gau\left(P\right)}\left(𝒜\right)\right)\overline{𝒜/Gau\left(P\right)}Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},Eq\left(P\right))/AdG.$$

For the groups $`U\left(𝗇\right)`$ or $`SU\left(𝗇\right)`$ we have that

$$Hol\left(𝒜_{}\right)=Cyl_{Gau\left(P\right)}\left(𝒜\right)$$

and that

$$Spec\left(Hol\left(𝒜_{}\right)\right)\overline{𝒜/Gau\left(P\right)}Hom(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{},Eq\left(P\right))/AdG.$$

However, the concrete characterization of the closure of $`𝒜`$ in the non trivial case remains an open problem. In the analytic case, the Approximation Condition on $`𝒜`$ is proved for any $`G`$ (see e.g. ). In the smooth immersive case, the Approximation Condition can be proved for a semisimple group $`G`$ using the fact that webs are decomposed in tassels, each contained in some trivializing neighborhood, as in the proof of Proposition 2 in .

The results obtained in the Abelian non-analytic case are difficult to be generalized to non trivial bundles, since hoops are not local. Ashtekar and Lewandowski proved that $`\overline{𝒜_{}}=Hom(𝒢,U\left(1\right))`$ for the Hopf bundle and its pullbacks .

Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank C. Fleischhack for his comments on the manuscript and for signaling out his results contained in ,  and .