text:
# Untitled Document

gr-qc/0202097

SU–GP–01/12–1

General Covariance and the “Problem of Time” in a Discrete Cosmology ** To appear in the proceedings of the Alternative Natural Philosophy Association meeting, held August 16-21, 2001, Cambridge, England. This is the slightly extended text of a talk presented at the meeting by R.D.S. and based on joint work of the authors.

Graham Brightwell

Mathematics Department, London School of Economics

H. Fay Dowker

Physics Department, Queen Mary College, University of London

Raquel S. García

Physics Department, Imperial College, London

Joe Henson

Physics Department, Queen Mary College, University of London

Rafael D. Sorkin

Physics Department, Queen Mary College, University of London

and

Department of Physics, Syracuse University

Abstract

Identifying an appropriate set of “observables” is a nontrivial task for most approaches to quantum gravity. We describe how it may be accomplished in the context of a recently proposed family of stochastic (but classical) dynamical laws for causal sets. The underlying idea should work equally well in the quantum case.

1. Introduction

Perhaps I should begin by clarifying what I don’t mean by the quoted phrase “problem of time” in my title. In the canonical quantization of gravity, as it is normally understood (and sought) the fundamental object of attention is not spacetime but space alone (corresponding to something like a Cauchy surface in spacetime) and anyone following this approach is sooner or later faced with the problem of recovering time from a frozen formalism (as it’s sometimes called) from which time as such is absent. The problem of time in this sense is, I believe, insoluble and it will not be the subject of this talk. (See  .) Indeed, since I will be presupposing that the deep structure of spacetime is that of a causal set, temporality will be built in at the most fundamental level, and there will be no need to “recover” it, just as there would be no need to “recover time” in a continuum path integral approach to quantum gravity based on the Lorentzian manifold as the fundamental structure.  Not that, in saying this, I mean to downplay the need to explain why the dynamics tends to favor that small minority of causal sets which resemble Lorentzian manifolds over the multitude of those which don’t.

Nevertheless, there still remain vital interpretational issues related to the generally covariant nature of gravity that sometimes are also called “problems of time”,  Observe in this connection that it is the diffeomorphism invariance of the gravitational Lagrangian (or rather action-integral) which is responsible for the “frozen” character of the corresponding canonical formalism issues that one can point to by asking (in the language of one version of quantum mechanics) “What are the observables of quantum gravity?”. For my part, I’d prefer a reference to “be-ables” rather than “observe-ables”, but the question I will be addressing in this talk is best posed without using either word. Rather we can simply ask “To what questions (about the causal set) can the dynamics give answers?”

Within the (stochastic but still classical) dynamical framework we will be considering, a question (in logicians’ language a “predicate”) corresponds to a collection of causal sets (the predicate’s “extension”) and its answer is not a simple yes or no, but the probability that the answer will be yes, which mathematically is the measure of the corresponding collection. Thus, we will be asking which classes of causal sets (the “histories” of the theory) are measurable in a way compatible with general covariance. I will propose a very definite answer to this question that will follow naturally from the way the dynamics will be defined as a stochastic process. Not all the resulting measurable classes (or their associated predicates) will obviously possess an accessible physical meaning, but a certain subset will (those based on “stems”). Fortunately this subset is very big, and it seems quite possible that nothing of interest — or even nothing at all — remains outside of it. After describing a precise conjecture to this effect, I will conclude by asking whether a proof of the conjecture would settle all the interpretational issues, or whether a logically independent notion of “conditional probability” is also needed. Before I can present these thoughts more fully, however, some review is needed of the causal set idea itself.

2. A Brief review of causal set theory

The causal set hypothesis states that the deep structure of spacetime is that of a discrete partial order, and that, consequently, “quantum gravity” can be realized only as a quantum theory of causal sets (“causets” for short). To say what a causet is structurally is easy: it’s a locally finite partial order; but to specify fully the meaning of the words “quantum theory of causets” is much harder. It seems plausible that the dynamics of such a theory (its “laws of motion” if you will) would be specified mathematically in terms of a “decoherence functional”  or “quantum measure”  but we are only beginning to understand the principles that might lead us to the correct one.  As I am using it, the term “decoherence functional” denotes no more than a certain type of mathematical object, formally defined by axioms of bi-additivity, etc. In particular, I do not mean to add any requirement that it actually “decohere” in the sense of being diagonal on any partition of the “sample space” $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to be defined below. On the other hand, we do have a family of classical dynamical laws derived from well defined general principles including a principle of “discrete general covariance” and a certain principle of “Bell causality”. To the extent that these principles carry over to the quantal case, we are thus a considerable way along the road to a quantum dynamics for causets. Moreover, the projected quantum dynamics shares enough attributes with the existing classical one that it seems worthwhile to consult the latter for indications of what we can expect from its quantum generalization.

In this way, it has been possible to make some guesses and heuristic predictions which have begun to bring the theory into contact with phenomenology. The list of these must include first of all the anticipation    of time-dependent fluctuations in the cosmological constant whose predicted current magnitude of $`10^{120}`$ in natural units has turned out to be in good accord with recent observations. Second  there exists a (purely kinematical) counting of “horizon quanta” whose number is (both in order of magnitude and proportionality to horizon area) compatible with the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for both equilibrium and nonequilibrium examples of black holes. We also have an indication  of how some of the notorious large numbers of cosmology might be explained, as well as a framework  within which Hawking radiation can be addressed. (In the way of practical tools there also exists an extensive library  of Lisp functions designed for working with causets, i.e. basically with finite ordered sets or “posets”.)

In the following, however, I wish to concentrate not on the phenomenological aspects of the theory but on interpretational ones, more specifically on the question already raised of which physically meaningful (i.e. generally covariant) predicates correspond to classes of causets to which the dynamics can assign a measure (probability). To this end, I will have to describe more precisely the family of stochastic dynamical laws on which these considerations will be based.

3. The classical (stochastic) dynamics of sequential growth and its formal definition as a stochastic process

As indicated by the title of this talk, we will work within a “cosmological” setting, in the sense that the probabilities in question will pertain to the causet as a whole, not just to some part of it. This seems to be necessary, as it is difficult to imagine how any generally covariant procedure could single out a definite “subregion” of the universe in an a priori manner. A cosmological standpoint is also appropriate formally, since the dynamical laws we will be using conceive of the “time-development” of the causet as a process of sequential growth in which elements appear (“are born”) one by one; and, as formulated, these laws make sense only if there is a genuine “beginning condition” in which there are no elements at all (or at most a finite number).

The family of dynamical laws in question is described in detail in , where it is derived as the unique (generic) solution of certain conditions of “internal temporality”, “Bell causality” and “discrete general covariance”. For present purposes, it is enough to know that the resulting scheme describes a stochastic birth process which, “at stage $`n`$”, yields a poset $`\stackrel{~}{C}_n`$ of $`n`$ elements, within which the most recently born element is maximal. If one employs a genealogical language in which “$`xy`$” can be read as “$`x`$ is an ancestor of $`y`$”, then the $`n^{th}`$ element (counting from $`0`$) must at birth “choose” its ancestors from the elements of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_n`$, and for consistency it must choose a subset $`S`$ with the property that $`xySxS`$. (Every ancestor of one of my ancestors is also my ancestor.) Such a subset $`S`$ (which is necessarily finite) will be called a stem. The dynamics is then determined fully by giving the transition probabilities governing each such choice of $`S\stackrel{~}{C}_n`$. (To understand how a set of probabilities can determine a dynamics, think of a random walk. The “law of motion” of the walker is specified by giving, for each possible time and location, the probability of taking, say, a step to the right, a step to the left, or just staying put.)

We can formalize this scheme by introducing for each integer $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ the set $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(n)`$ of labeled causets of $`n`$ elements. By definition, a member of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(n)`$ is thus a set $`\stackrel{~}{C}_n`$ with cardinality $`n`$ carrying a relation $``$ such that $`xyzxz`$ (transitivity), and $`xx`$ (irreflexivity), and whose elements are labeled by integers $`0,1,\mathrm{},n1`$ that record their order of birth. Moreover this labeling is natural in the sense that $`xyl(x)<l(y)`$, $`l(x)`$ being the label of $`x`$. Each birth of a new element occasions one of the allowed transitions from $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(n)`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(n+1)`$ and occurs with a specified conditional probability $`\tau `$ (which turns out to depend only on a pair of simple invariants of the ancestor set $`S\stackrel{~}{C}_n`$ of the newborn).

Mathematically, however, such a set of transition probabilities $`\tau `$ does not yet qualify as a stochastic process, and for good reason. In the presence of fundamental randomness, no certain predictions are possible. Instead, the “laws of motion” can at best give probabilistic answers to questions about what the object under study (causet, random walker, etc.) will do, answers of the form “Yes, with probability $`p`$”, where $`p[0,1]`$. For example, in the case of a random walk on the integers, one might ask “Will the walker ever return to the origin?”. Since the return, if it occurs at all, might be postponed to an arbitrarily late time, its probability $`p`$ can be given meaning only in terms of a limiting process. For this particular question, however, there exists an obvious definition of $`p`$ as the limit of an increasing sequence of probabilities, each of which can be computed from a finite number of elementary transition probabilities $`\tau `$. On the other hand, for a question like “Will the sequence of locations of the walker form an irrational decimal fraction when reduced modulo ten?”, it is not immediately clear whether any meaningful probabilistic answer can be given at all on the basis of the $`\tau `$.

In order to arrive at a definite theory, then, one needs to specify the set of questions that the theory can answer and for each one of them, explain how in principle, the “yes” probability can be computed. Fortunately, there exists a standard construction which will accomplish both these tasks starting from any consistent set of transition probabilities $`\tau `$. The result of this construction is a triad consisting of a sample space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, a $`\sigma `$-algebra $``$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and a probability measure $`\mu `$ with domain $``$. In relation to the above two tasks, each member $`Q`$ of $``$ corresponds to one of the answerable questions and its measure $`p=\mu (Q)`$ is the answer. Such a triad constitutes what one means mathematically by a “stochastic process”, the transition probabilities $`\tau `$ serve only as raw material for its construction. (That $``$ is a $`\sigma `$-algebra on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ means that it is a family of subsets of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ closed under complementation and countable intersection. That $`\mu `$ is a probability measure with domain $``$ means that it takes members of $``$ to non-negative real numbers and is $`\sigma `$-additive, with $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })=1`$. Finally, $`\sigma `$-additivity means that $`\mu `$ assigns to the union of a countable collection of mutually disjoint sets in its domain the sum of the measures it assigns to the individual sets.)

In the case at hand, the sample space is the set $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\mathrm{})`$ of completed labeled causets these being the infinite causets that would result if the birth process were made to “run to completion”. (I’ll use a tilde to indicate labeling. Notice that a completed causet, though infinite, is still locally finite.  Local finiteness, a formal realization of the concept of discreteness, is the property that the order interval, $`\{x|axb\}`$, is finite for all elements $`a`$ and $`b`$. Indeed it is past-finite in the sense that no element has more than a finite number of ancestors.) The dynamics is then given by a probability measure $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ constructed from the $`\tau `$ whose domain $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is a $`\sigma `$-algebra which I will specify more fully in a moment. For future use, we will need in addition to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ the corresponding space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of completed unlabeled causets, whose members can also be viewed in an obvious manner as equivalence classes within $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$.

(To be pedantically precise, one should perhaps speak of the members of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ not as single causets but as isomorphism equivalence classes of them — what one might call “abstract causets”.)

At first hearing, calling a probability measure a dynamical law might sound strange, but in fact, once we have the measure $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ we can say everything of a predictive nature that it is possible to say a priori about the behavior of the causet $`C`$. For example, one might ask “Will the universe recollapse?” (a question analogous to our earlier question of whether the random walker would return to the origin). Mathematically, this is asking whether $`C`$ will develop a “post”, defined as an element whose ancestors and descendants taken together exhaust the remainder of $`C`$. Let $`A\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ be the set of all completed labeled causets having posts.  One can show that $`A\stackrel{~}{}`$, so that $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }(A)`$ is defined. Then our question is equivalent to asking whether $`CA`$, and the answer is “yes with probability $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }(A)`$.” It is thus $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ that expresses the “laws of motion” (or better “laws of growth”) that constitute our stochastic dynamics: its domain $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ tells us which questions the laws can answer, and its values $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }(A)`$ tell us what the answers are.

Of course, this sketch of how a sequential growth model is built up is incomplete, because I haven’t explained the construction that leads from the transition probabilities $`\tau `$ to the measure $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$. The full details of this construction can be found in many textbooks of probability theory (e.g. ), but for present purposes, all we really need to know is how the domain $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ is obtained. To each finite causet $`\stackrel{~}{S}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(n)`$ one can associate the so called “cylinder set” comprising all those $`\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ whose first $`n`$ elements (those labeled $`0\mathrm{}n1`$) form an isomorphic copy of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$; and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is then the smallest $`\sigma `$-algebra containing all these cylinder sets. More constructively, $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is the collection of all subsets of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ which can be built up from the cylinder sets by a countable process involving union, intersection and complementation.  A slightly bigger $`\sigma `$-algebra than $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ can be obtained by adjoining the sets of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$-measure zero, but what these sets are will depend in general on the specific dynamical law, as determined, e.g., by a choice of the parameters $`t_n`$ of .

Finally, what about the transition probabilities $`\tau `$ themselves, on which the whole construction is based? Modulo certain non-generic solutions, the possibilities for the $`\tau `$ have been classified in , the main conclusion being that $`\tau `$ generically takes the form $`\tau =\lambda (\varpi ,m)/\lambda (n,0)`$ where, for the potential transition in question, $`\varpi `$ is the number of ancestors of the new element, $`m`$ the number of its “parents”, and $`n`$ the number of elements present before the birth, and where $`\lambda (\varpi ,m)`$ is given by the formula $`_k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\varpi m}{km}\right)t_k`$ with the $`t_k`$ being the free parameters or “coupling constants” of the theory. (For more details see  or .)

4. Two meanings of general covariance

It might seem strange that our growth law has been expressed in terms of labeled causets. After all, labels in this discrete setting are the analogs of coordinates in the continuum, and the first lesson of general relativity is precisely that such arbitrary identifiers must be regarded as physically meaningless: the elements of spacetime — or of the causet — have individuality only to the extent that they acquire it from the pattern of their relations to the other elements. It is therefore natural to introduce a principle of “discrete general covariance” according to which “the labels are physically meaningless”.

But why have labels at all then? For causets, the reason is that we don’t know otherwise how to formulate the idea of sequential growth, or the condition thereon of Bell causality, which plays a crucial role in deriving the dynamics . Ideally perhaps, one would formulate the theory so that labels never entered, but so far, no one knows how to do this — anymore than one knows how to formulate general relativity without introducing extra gauge degrees of freedom that then have to be canceled against the diffeomorphism invariance.

Given the dynamics as we can formulate it, discrete general covariance plays a double role. On one hand it serves to limit the possible choices of the transition probabilities in such a way that the labels drop out of certain “net probabilities”, a condition made precise in . This is meant to be the analog of requiring the gravitational action-integral $`S`$ to be invariant under diffeomorphisms (whence, in virtue of the further assumption of locality, it must be the integral of a local scalar concomitant of the metric). On the other hand, general covariance limits the questions one can meaningfully ask about the causet (cf. Einstein’s “hole argument” ). It is this second limitation that is related to the “problem of time”, and it is only this aspect of discrete general covariance that I am addressing in the present talk.

Just as in the continuum the demand of diffeomorphism-invariance makes it harder to formulate meaningful statements,  Think, for example, of the statement that light slows down when passing near the sun. so also for causets the demand of discrete general covariance has the same consequence, bringing with it the risk that, even if we succeed in characterizing the covariant questions in abstract formal terms, we may never know what they mean in a physically useful way. I believe that a similar issue will arise in every approach to quantum gravity, discrete or continuous (unless of course general covariance is renounced).  In the case of canonical quantum gravity, this issue is the problem of time. There, covariance means commuting with the constraints, and the problem is how to interpret quantities which do so in any recognizable spacetime language. For an attempt in string theory to grapple with similar issues see . However, it seems fair to say that both the nature of the difficulty and the manner of its proposed resolution will appear with special clarity in the context of causal sets, whose discreteness removes many of the technical difficulties that tend to obscure the underlying physical issues in the continuum.

5. What are the covariant questions?

Given the formal developments of Section 4, it is not hard to see which members of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ express covariant predicates, and from a dynamical point of view, these are the only covariant predicates of interest.

Before describing them, let me illustrate the issue we face with the question, “Which (unlabeled) causet is formed by the first $`n`$ elements to be born?”. In effect, we are asking for the probability distribution induced by our measure $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ on the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$ of unlabeled $`n`$-orders, but, although such a distribution can be computed, it has no obvious meaning because a question like “Do the first three elements of $`C`$ form a 3-chain  A (finite) chain is a causet whose elements can be arranged so that each is an ancestor of the next. For a 3-chain, we have three elements $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ such that $`abc`$.?” has in general different answers depending on what order of birth you impute to the elements of $`C`$. Thus if we were to divide the set $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ into two parts, the “yes” part composed of those $`\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ whose first 3 elements make up a chain, and the “no” part composed of those $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ whose first 3 elements make up one of the other four 3-orders, then some members of the “yes” set would be isomorphic to members of the “no” set.

We see now what it means for a subset of $`A\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ to be covariant: it cannot contain any labeled completed causet $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ without containing at the same time all those $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{}`$ isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ (i.e. differing only in their labelings). To be measurable as well as covariant, $`A`$ must also belong to $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. Let $``$ be the collection of all such sets: $`AA\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{and}\stackrel{~}{C}_1\stackrel{~}{C}_2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }},\stackrel{~}{C}_1A\stackrel{~}{C}_2A`$. It is not hard to see that $``$ is a sub-$`\sigma `$-algebra of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, whence the restriction of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ to $``$ is a measure $`\mu `$ on the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of unlabeled completed causets.  As just defined, an element $`A`$ is a subset of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. However, because it is re-labeling invariant, it can also be regarded as a subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, an equivalence which I will henceforth utilize without explicit mention. It is this measure $`\mu `$ that provides the answers to all the covariant questions for which the dynamics has answers.  Notice the distinction that arises here between a subset of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ that fails to belong to $``$ and one that fails even to be covariant (one that cannot be regarded as a subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$). The former corresponds to a question that the dynamics can’t answer, the latter to a question that is without any physical meaning at all. But what do these questions signify physically?

6. Stem sets and a conjecture

Among the questions belonging to $``$ there are some which do have a clear significance. Let $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$ be any finite unlabeled causet and let $`R(S)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the “stem set”, $`\{C\mathrm{\Omega }|C\text{admits}S\text{as a stem}\}`$. (Thus $`R(S)`$ comprises those unlabeled completed causets with the property that, with respect to some natural labeling, the first $`n`$ elements form a causet isomorphic to $`S`$.) Since (as one can prove) $`R(S)`$ is measurable, it belongs to $``$. For this particular element of $``$, the meaning of the corresponding causet question is evident: “Does the causet possess $`S`$ as a stem?”.  Here is a simple example. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be the 3-element causet given by $`ac,bc`$, let $`V`$ be its dual (given by $`ac,bc`$), and let $`S`$ be the 2-chain (given by $`ab`$). Then $`V`$ possesses $`S`$ as a stem, while $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ does not. Equally evident is the significance of any question built up as a logical combination of stem-questions of this sort. To such compound stem-questions belong members of $``$ built up from stem-sets $`R(S)`$ using union, intersection and complementation (corresponding to the logical operators ‘or’, ‘and’ and ‘not’). If all the members of $``$ were of this type, we would not only have succeeded in characterizing the dynamically meaningful covariant questions at a formal level, but we would have understood their physical significance as well.  This is not yet their phenomenological meaning, of course. To get the phenomenological significance (in cases where there is one) one must translate between the combinatorial language proper to the causet and the geometrical and field-theoretic language of macroscopic physics. The following conjecture asserts that, to all intents and purposes, this is the case.

Conjecture The “stem-sets” $`R(S)`$ generate  A family $``$ of subsets is said to generate a $`\sigma `$-algebra $`𝒜`$ if $`𝒜`$ is the smallest $`\sigma `$-algebra containing all the members of $``$. For example, the cylinder sets introduced above generate the $`\sigma `$-algebra $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. the $`\sigma `$-algebra $``$ up to sets of measure zero.

Here the technical qualification about sets of measure zero complicates the statement of the conjecture but does not essentially weaken it. Some such qualification is required, unfortunately, because one can exhibit counterexamples to the unqualified conjecture. Notice, once again, that the words “measure zero” have meaning only with respect to some choice of stochastic dynamical law, since different choices correspond to different measures $`\mu `$ which, in general will possess different families of measure-zero sets. Thus, a more complete phrasing of the conjecture would read “For every choice of sequential growth model, the stem-sets $`R(S)`$ generate $``$ up to sets of measure zero.” Here a sequential growth model is any member of the “generic” family described briefly in Section 3 above (and at length in ), and more generally any solution of the conditions of Bell causality, etc. delineated in .

The conjecture asserts that $`_S=`$, where $`_S`$ is the subalgebra of $``$ generated by the stem-sets $`R(S)`$. In a moment, I’ll present some evidence in favor of this equality, but first I’d like to stress that, even if $`_S`$ fails to exhaust $``$, it still supplies us with a large store of predicates whose physical significance is transparent, and this store probably suffices for practical purposes since one’s experience so far indicates that all predicates of interest belong to it, either outright or up to a set of measure zero. For example, the predicate “contains a post” belongs to $`_S`$.

Now the intuitive import of our conjecture is that everything we need to say about a causet can be phrased in terms of its stems. If this is so, then we’d expect at least that a specification of the full set of stems of a given causet $`C\mathrm{\Omega }`$ would suffice to characterize $`C`$ uniquely. As a matter of fact, not all causets enjoy this feature, but the exceptions are rare enough that the probability of one of them being produced by a sequential growth process is zero. (Employing the jargon of probability theory, we may say that a causet $`C`$ produced by one of the sequential growth processes is almost surely characterized by its stems.) That this is so speaks in favor of the conjecture but, as far a I know, is not enough to demonstrate it fully. Its proof, in any case, can be given in three steps as follows .

(a) If $`C\mathrm{\Omega }`$ fails to be characterized by its stems then it must contain an infinite number of copies of some stem $`S`$.

(b) If $`C\mathrm{\Omega }`$ contains an infinite number of copies of the same stem $`S`$ then it must contain an infinite antichain (indeed an infinite level).

(c) The probability is zero that a $`C`$ produced by one of the classical sequential growth models will contain an infinite level, or indeed any infinite antichain.

Strictly speaking, statement (c) has been proven only for the models described above which are parameterized by the “coupling constants” $`t_0,t_1,t_2,\mathrm{}`$, but these are generic in the sense that they include all solutions for which no transition probability $`\tau `$ vanishes . Moreover (c) fails for the special case where $`t_n=0`$ for all $`n2`$. But this exception does not affect the main conclusion, because if $`t_0`$ is the only nonzero $`t_n`$ then $`C`$ is almost surely an infinite antichain, while if $`t_0`$ and $`t_1`$ are both nonzero then $`C`$ is almost surely an infinite number of copies of the tree in which each element has an infinite number of children; and both these causets are also characterized by their stems.

To get a feel for what these results mean, consider the causet $`C^{}`$ consisting of an infinite number of unrelated copies of the infinite chain $`e_0e_1e_2\mathrm{}`$ . This causet is not characterized by its stems, because, e.g., the causet $`C^{\prime \prime }`$ made from $`C^{}`$ by adjoining a single $`n`$-chain ($`1n<\mathrm{}`$) has precisely the same stems as $`C^{}`$. (A causet $`S`$ is such a stem iff it is the sum of a finite number of finite chains.) The proof outlined above then tells us that $`C^{}`$ and $`C^{\prime \prime }`$ are infinitely unlikely to “grow” in any of the models with $`t_2>0`$.

7. Conclusion and some further questions

General covariance in classical gravity is a two-edged sword. On one hand it is both philosophically satisfying (at least to those of us who favor “relational” or “dialectical” theories) and heuristically fruitful for the way in which it limits the possible equations of motion. On the other hand it forces the consequent formalism farther from experience, because it renders meaningless all statements which are not, at least implicitly, of a global character. (In this sense, the context for a generally covariant theory is always cosmological in scope.) The meaningful statements become thereby both harder to formulate and harder to interpret (“problem of time”).

In the case of (classical) general relativity, these difficulties are somewhat mitigated by the theory’s determinism, which means that predictions can effectively be made and verified locally. Such is not the case, however, in an indeterministic theory, where the dynamics must presumably be expressed via relations of a probabilistic character among covariant statements whose global character is much harder to circumvent. The problem of characterizing and interpreting such statements must therefore arise in virtually every approach to quantum gravity, including of course the causet approach.  Among the possible exceptions would be approaches which attempt to restore strict determinism.

But the classical sequential growth models of causet dynamics are also indeterministic, and consequently the same problems arise for them. These models, which are intended primarily as a (practical and conceptual) stepping stone to the quantum theory of causets, offer a precisely defined schema within which the interpretational difficulties deriving from general covariance can be confronted. And within this setting, we have largely resolved them: the dynamically meaningful predicates have been precisely characterized in Section 5, and an interpretation for many or all of them (in terms of “stem-predicates”) has been set forth in Section 6.

For an ordinary stochastic process unfolding against the background of some non-dynamical parameter time, the predicates corresponding to measurable sets of trajectories can all be built up as logical combinations of more elementary ones that acquire their full meaning in a finite time. (They don’t refer to the infinite future). So it is also for the “cylinder set” predicates introduced in Section 3, but these predicates are unfortunately meaningless per se since they are not generally covariant. The nearest covariant replacements for these cylinder sets would seem to be the stem-sets $`R(S)`$. Unlike the cylinder sets, they do refer to the infinite future, for, although the predicate corresponding to a stem-set can become true in a finite time (after the birth of a finite number $`n`$ of elements) it can only strictly speaking become false in the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$.  Even if a stem $`S`$ has not appeared yet, we can never be absolutely certain that it won’t appear later on. Nonetheless, falsehood can become certain “for all practical purposes”, and in this sense, the truth or falsehood of a stem-predicate is also “verifiable in a finite time”.

Moreover the physical significance of a stem-predicate is transparent, since its truth is decided simply by whether the “universe” (i.e. the actual causet) does or does not (never will) contain the stem in question. To the extent, then, that all assertions of dynamical interest can be built up from the stem predicates, we will have resolved the “problem of time” for this range of models. A proof of the conjecture of Section 6 would vouchsafe us this conclusion. It is clear, moreover, that this relatively satisfactory situation depends heavily on the discreteness of the causal set.

To what extent can we hope to repeat these same steps in the quantum case (the case of quantum gravity)? As a mathematical object, a quantum measure/decoherence functional is not that different from a classical measure like $`\mu `$ above, so one might hope much of the above would go through relatively unchanged. Two hurdles arise immediately, however. First, of course, the predictive meaning of a quantum measure is much less well understood than that of a classical probability measure, whence, even if we could say precisely which subsets of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ were “measurable”, we still would not know exactly how to use this information.  For an attempt to codify the predictive use of the quantum measure without first reducing it to a set of classical probabilities, see . Second, the theorems that above led us from the transition probabilities $`\tau `$ to the measure $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ (and thence to $`\mu `$) break down in the quantum case because the complex amplitudes that one is constructing are no longer necessarily bounded in absolute value, unlike probabilities which are confined to the compact space $`[0,1]\text{}`$. How serious these problems are is hard to say, but certainly the second of them means that further technical developments would need to occur before one could rigorously state a quantum analog of the conjecture of Section 6.

Finally, I want to raise — without attempting to settle it — a question about the status of conditional probability in quantum gravity, or rather in the classical analog of causet quantum gravity which has been the basis of our considerations here. Certainly, one can “relativize” the measure $`\mu `$ to any measurable subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and thereby lend meaning to questions of the sort “Given that $`S_1`$ occurs as a stem in $`C`$ (the universe), what is the probability that $`S_2`$ also occurs as a stem?”. If such questions are the only ones we need to consider, then conditional probabilities here will have the same derived status as they do in other branches of probability theory. But how clear is it that such a syntax captures what we’d really like to ask? Consider instead something like this: “Given that $`S_1`$ occurs as a stem in $`C`$ what is the probability that a second stem $`S_2`$ occurs containing this particular copy of $`S_1`$ (the $`S_1`$ that “we inhabit”)?”. When $`C`$ contains more than one stem isomorphic to $`S_1`$, this second type of question seems different from the first, and indeed not even clearly defined on the sole basis of the “absolute” measure $`\mu `$. Does this mean we need a logically independent concept of conditional probability and an extended formalism to express it, which would re-open the “problem of time” in a new context? Or is it enough to remark that stems of sufficient complexity are unlikely to occur more than once, whence the problem is absent in practice? As with other conceptual issues raised by quantum gravity, so also with this “this particular stem” issue, it’s hard to say whether its resolution demands deep thought or just a bit of progress on the technical front.

This research was partly supported by NSF grant PHY-0098488, by a grant from the Office of Research and Computing of Syracuse University, and by an EPSRC Senior Fellowship at Queen Mary College. I would also like to express my gratitude to Goodenough College, which provided an estimable environment for life and work during my stay in London, where this paper was written.

References

 C.J. Isham, “Canonical Quantum Gravity and the Problem of Time”, in L. A. Ibort and M. A. Rodriguez (eds.), Integrable Systems, Quantum Groups, and Quantum Field Theories (Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, 1993) pp. 157–288 $``$gr-qc/9210011$``$ ; K.V. Kuchař, “Canonical Quantum Gravity” in R.J. Gleiser, C.N. Kozameh, O.M. Moreschi (eds.), “General Relativity and Gravitation 1992 ”: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, held Huerta Grande, Cordoba, 28 June-4 July, 1992 (Bristol, IOP Publishing 1993) .

 R.D. Sorkin, “Forks in the Road, on the Way to Quantum Gravity”, talk given at the conference entitled “Directions in General Relativity”, held at College Park, Maryland, May, 1993, Int. J. Th. Phys. 36: 2759–2781 (1997) $``$gr-qc/9706002$``$

 J.B. Hartle, “Spacetime Quantum Mechanics and the Quantum Mechanics of Spacetime”, in B. Julia and J. Zinn-Justin (eds.), Les Houches, session LVII, 1992, Gravitation and Quantizations (Elsevier Science B.V. 1995) $``$gr-qc/9304006$``$.

 R.D. Sorkin, “Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Measure Theory”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 9:3119-3127 (No. 33) (1994) $``$gr-qc/9401003$``$. Roberto B. Salgado, “Some Identities for the Quantum Measure and its Generalizations”, $``$gr-qc/9903015$``$.

 R.D. Sorkin, “Spacetime and Causal Sets”, in J.C. D’Olivo, E. Nahmad-Achar, M. Rosenbaum, M.P. Ryan, L.F. Urrutia and F. Zertuche (eds.), Relativity and Gravitation: Classical and Quantum (Proceedings of the SILARG VII Conference, held Cocoyoc, Mexico, December, 1990), pages 150-173 (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991).

 Y. Jack Ng and H. van Dam, “A small but nonzero cosmological constant”, (Int. J. Mod. Phys D., to appear) $``$hep-th/9911102$``$

 Djamel Dou, “Causal Sets, a Possible Interpretation for the Black Hole Entropy, and Related Topics”, Ph. D. thesis (SISSA, Trieste, 1999)

 Rafael D. Sorkin, “Indications of causal set cosmology”, Int. J. Theor. Ph. 39(7): 1731-1736 (2000) (an issue devoted to the proceedings of the Peyresq IV conference, held June-July 1999, Peyresq France) $``$gr-qc/0003043$``$

 A.R. Daughton, The Recovery of Locality for Causal Sets and Related Topics, Ph.D. dissertation (Syracuse University, 1993)

 Rafael D. Sorkin, A library of Lisp functions for posets and other purposes, http://www.physics.syr.edu/$`\stackrel{~}{}`$sorkin (Version 1.4, December 1998, Version 2.0 to be released soon)

 David P. Rideout and Rafael D. Sorkin, “A Classical Sequential Growth Dynamics for Causal Sets”, Phys. Rev. D 61, 024002 (2000) $``$gr-qc/9904062$``$

 E.B. Dynkin, Markov Processes (Academic Press, 1965)

 Xavier Martin, Denjoe O’Connor, David Rideout and Rafael D. Sorkin, “On the “renormalization” transformations induced by cycles of expansion and contraction in causal set cosmology”, Phys. Rev. D 63, 084026 (2001) $``$gr-qc/0009063$``$

 John Stachel, “Einstein’s Search for General Covariance, 1912–1915”, in Einstein and the History of General Relativity, edited by D. Howard and J. Stachel (Birkhäuser 1989)

 Edward Witten, “Quantum Gravity in De Sitter Space”, $``$hep-th/0106109$``$

 H. Fay Dowker, Raquel S. García, Joe Henson and Rafael D. Sorkin (in preparation)

 R.D. Sorkin, “Quantum Measure Theory and its Interpretation”, in Quantum Classical Correspondence: Proceedings of the $`4^{\mathrm{th}}`$ Drexel Symposium on Quantum Nonintegrability, held Philadelphia, September 8-11, 1994, edited by D.H. Feng and B-L Hu, pages 229–251 (International Press, Cambridge Mass. 1997) $``$gr-qc/9507057$``$


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The aim of the present article is to show that, in the study of integrable systems (without or with boundary), all the relevant informations are contained in (and can be reconstructed from) a unique algebra: the ZF algebra. This fact is known in the case of the Non Linear Schrödinger equation in 2 dimensions, and we will show that this is true in general.

In the study of the Non Linear Schrödinger (NLS) equation in 2 dimensions, it has been known for a long time that a central role is played by a deformed oscillators algebra, the ZF algebra . These deformed oscillators can be seen as the asymptotic states of the physical system. Thanks to this algebra, one can reconstruct the quantum Hamiltonians of the hierarchy associated to NLS, as well as its quantum canonical fields . Quite recently , it has also been shown that the integrals of motion of this hierarchy, which form a Yangian algebra $`Y(N)`$, are a part of the ZF algebra, and an explicit construction in term of basic ZF generators was given.

It appears that the same technics can be applied in the case of the Non Linear Schrödinger equation with a boundary (BNLS). Following the work of Cherednik  and Sklyanin , who studied the problem of boundaries in integrable systems in the QISM framework, Mintchev et al  have shown that the algebraic approach used for NLS can also be applied to BNLS. In that case, the ZF algebra is replaced by a so-called boundary algebra, which contains both the asymptotic states of the system and the effect of the boundary. Indeed, the boundary algebra contains as a subalgebra the reflection algebra, which is known to be of fundamental importance in integrable systems with boundary. The Hamiltonians and the canonical fields of the hierarchy can be also reconstructed from the boundary algebra, and recently  it has been shown that the reflection algebra indeed correspond to the integrals of motion of the hierarchy. Thanks to this subalgebra, a classification of the boundary conditions was also given .

We will show that most of the above features, explicited for NLS, are valid in full generality, provided one has at its disposal a $`R`$-matrix which obeys a unitary condition. In particular, the Hamiltonians and the integrals of motion of an integrable hierarchy will be exhibited, both in the case without and with boundary. We will show that the integrals of motion form a quantum group when there is no boundary, and a Hopf coideal subalgebra of this quantum group when there is a boundary. As for NLS, the central role of the construction will be a ZF algebra, and a class of operators (contained in the ZF algebra) called well-bred operators.

The paper is organized as follows: in the first section, we treat the case without boundary; then, the next section deals with the case of boundaries; finally, we conclude in section 4. Most of the results presented here can be found in , and we refer to these papers for the original proofs.

## 2 Case without boundary

The starting point is an evaluated $`R`$-matrix, of size $`N^2\times N^2`$, with spectral parameter, and which obeys the Yang-Baxter equation and the unitarity condition:

$`R_{12}(k_1,k_2)R_{13}(k_1,k_3)R_{23}(k_2,k_3)=R_{23}(k_2,k_3)R_{13}(k_1,k_3)R_{12}(k_1,k_2)`$ (2.1)
$`R_{12}(k_1,k_2)R_{21}(k_2,k_1)=𝕀𝕀`$ (2.2)
Note that no assumption is made on the form of the dependence in the spectral parameters $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$.

To this $`R`$-matrix one can introduce two types of algebras, that we describe below.

### 2.1 The Z.F. algebra

The Zamolodchikov-Faddeev (ZF) algebra is an exchange algebra, that can be seen as a deformation of an oscillators algebras.

###### Definition 2.1 (ZF algebra $`𝒜_R`$)

To the above $`R`$-matrix, one can associate a ZF algebra $`𝒜_R`$, with generators $`a_i(k)`$ and $`a_i^{}(k)`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$) and exchange relations:

$`a_1(k_1)a_2(k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{21}(k_2,k_1)a_2(k_2)a_1(k_1)`$ (2.3)
$`a_1^{}(k_1)a_2^{}(k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`a_2^{}(k_2)a_1^{}(k_1)R_{21}(k_2,k_1)`$ (2.4)
$`a_1(k_1)a_2^{}(k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`a_2^{}(k_2)R_{12}(k_1,k_2)a_1(k_1)+\delta (k_1k_2)\delta _{12}`$ (2.5)
We use the notations on auxiliary spaces

$`a_1(k_1)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}a_i(k_1)e_i𝕀\text{ , }a_2(k_2)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}a_i(k_2)𝕀e_i`$ (2.6)
$`a_1^{}(k_1)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}a_i^{}(k_1)e_i^{}𝕀\text{ , }a_2^{}(k_2)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}a_i^{}(k_2)𝕀e_i^{}`$ (2.7)
$`\delta _{12}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e_ie_i^{}\text{ , }e_i^{}=(0,\mathrm{},0,\stackrel{i}{1},0,\mathrm{},0)\text{ , }e_i^{}e_j=\delta _{ij}`$ (2.8)
where $``$ stands for the scalar product of vectors. Note that any central element of $`𝒜_R`$ is a constant, and that this algebra admits an adjoint operation:

###### Property 2.2

Let $``$ be defined by

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}𝒜_R\hfill & & 𝒜_R\hfill \\ a(k)\hfill & & a^{}(k)\hfill \\ a^{}(k)\hfill & & a(k)\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.9)
together with $`(xy)^{}=y^{}x^{}`$, $`x,y𝒜_R`$ and $`R_{12}(k_1,k_2)^{}=R_{21}(k_2,k_1)`$.

Then $``$ is an anti-automorphism of $`𝒜_R`$.

Note that the adjoint operation is defined on $`a(k)`$ and $`a^{}(k)`$, i.e. on elements of $`𝒜_R[[k]]^N`$: that is the reason why it has also to be defined on the evaluated $`R`$-matrix.

### 2.2 Quantum group $`𝒰_R`$

Still with the $`R`$-matrix at our disposable, we can construct a quantum group $`𝒰_R`$, with Hopf structure, in the usual way.

###### Definition 2.3 (Quantum group $`𝒰_R`$)

To the above $`R`$-matrix, one can associate a quantum group $`𝒰_R`$, with generators $`T_{ij}^{(n)}`$ which are gathered (using a spectral parameter $`k`$) in a $`N\times N`$ matrix

$$T(k)=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}k^nT_{ij}^{(n)}E_{ij}$$
(2.10)
which is submitted to the relation

$$R_{12}(k_1,k_2)T_1(k_1)T_2(k_2)=T_2(k_2)T_1(k_1)R_{12}(k_1,k_2)$$
(2.11)
with $`T_1(k)=T(k)𝕀`$ and $`T_2(k)=𝕀T(k)`$.

The coproduct in $`𝒰_R`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T(k)=T(k)\stackrel{.}{}T(k)$$
(2.12)
where $`\stackrel{.}{}`$ is the tensor product in $`𝒰_R`$ and the matricial product in the auxiliary space.

More explicitly, the coproduct reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_{(n)}^{ab}=\underset{p+q=n}{}\underset{c=1}{\overset{N}{}}T_{(p)}^{ac}T_{(q)}^{cb}$$
(2.13)
Depending on the $`R`$-matrix, one gets for $`𝒰_R`$, e.g. the Yangian $`Y(N)`$ based on $`gl(N)`$ (for $`R(k_1,k_2)=R(k_1k_2)`$ with $`R(u)=\frac{u^2+g^2}{u^2}(𝕀\frac{ig}{u}P_{12})`$, where $`P_{12}`$ is the permutation of the two auxiliary spaces), or the quantum group $`𝒰_q(\widehat{gl_N})`$, based on the affine algebra $`\widehat{gl_N}`$ (for $`R(k_1,k_2)=R(k_1/k_2)`$ as given in e.g. ).

### 2.3 Vertex operator construction

Our aim is to construct $`𝒰_R`$ from $`𝒜_R`$, i.e. $`T(k)`$ from $`a(k)`$ and $`a^{}(k)`$. The basic notion for such a purpose is:

###### Definition 2.4 (Well-bred operators in $`𝒜_R`$)

$`L(k)𝒜_RM_N()[[k]]`$ is said well-bred if it satisfies

$`L_1(k_1)a_2(k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`R_{21}(k_2,k_1)a_2(k_2)L_1(k_1)`$ (2.14)
$`L_1(k_1)a_2^{}(k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`a_2^{}(k_2)R_{12}(k_1,k_2)L_1(k_1)`$ (2.15)
In , it has being shown that a well-bred operator $`T(k)`$ can be constructed as a series in $`a`$’s:

$$T(k_0)=𝕀+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{(n1)!}a_{n\mathrm{}1}^{}T_{01\mathrm{}n}^{(n)}a_{1\mathrm{}n}$$
(2.16)
with

$`a_{n\mathrm{}1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{\alpha _n}^{}(k_n)\mathrm{}a_{\alpha _1}^{}(k_1)e_{\alpha _1}^{}\mathrm{}e_{\alpha _n}^{}`$
$`a_{1\mathrm{}n}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{\beta _1}(k_1)\mathrm{}a_{\beta _n}(k_n)e_{\beta _1}\mathrm{}e_{\beta _n}`$
$`T_{01\mathrm{}n}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{\alpha _0,\beta _0,\alpha _1,\beta _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _n,\beta _n}^{(n)}(k_0,k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)E_{\alpha _0,\beta _0}E_{\alpha _1,\beta _1}\mathrm{}E_{\alpha _n,\beta _n}`$
There is an implicit summation on the indices $`\alpha _0,\beta _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _n,\beta _n=1,\mathrm{},N`$ and an integration over the spectral parameters $`𝑑k_1\mathrm{}𝑑k_n`$. The matrices $`T_{01\mathrm{}n}^{(n)}`$ are built using only the evaluated $`R`$-matrix. For their exact expression, we refer to . To clarify the notation, let us stress that the auxiliary spaces indices $`1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ being repeated, they are ”dummy” (the corresponding indices $`\alpha `$’s and $`\beta `$’s are summed), and as such can be exchanged. As a consequence, the matrices $`T_{01\mathrm{}n}^{(n)}`$ obey the following property :

###### Property 2.5

Without any loss of generality, the matrices $`T_{01\mathrm{}n}^{(n)}`$ can be supposed to obey the following relation

$`i<j`$ $`T_{01\mathrm{}n}^{(n)}=_{ij}^1T_{01\mathrm{}n|ij}^{(n)}_{ij}`$
with $`T_{01\mathrm{}n}^{(n)}T_{01\mathrm{}n}^{(n)}(k_0,k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)`$
$`T_{01\mathrm{}n|ij}^{(n)}=T_{0,1,\mathrm{},i1,j,i+1,\mathrm{},j1,i,j+1,\mathrm{},n}^{(n)}`$
and $`_{ij}=\left({\displaystyle \underset{a=i+1}{\overset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{j1}}{}}}R_{ia}(k_i,k_a)\right)R_{ij}(k_i,k_j)\left({\displaystyle \underset{b=i+1}{\overset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{j1}}{}}}R_{bj}(k_b,k_j)\right)`$
Let us stress that in $`T_{01\mathrm{}n|ij}^{(n)}`$, the spectral parameters $`k_i`$ and $`k_j`$ are also exchanged.

The vertex operator obey the fundamental property:

###### Property 2.6

The vertex operator (2.16) obeys the quantum group $`𝒰_R`$ relations

$$R_{12}(k_1,k_2)T_1(k_1)T_2(k_2)=T_2(k_2)T_1(k_1)R_{12}(k_1,k_2)$$
(2.17)
Note that the construction is unique: there is only one vertex operator (i.e. a series of the form (2.16)) which yields a well-bred operator.

Let us remark that the definition of well-bred operators provides linear equations in $`L(k)`$, while the quantum group relations are quadratic in $`T(k)`$. That is the reason why the use of well-bred operators is crucial for the construction of the quantum group. The situation is somehow analogous to the case of Drinfeld twist $``$ for Hopf algebras: the cocycle condition is quadratic in $``$, and it is using linear equations in $``$ that one is able to give explicit forms for $``$.

Due to the relation

$$T^{}(k)=T^1(k)$$
(2.18)
the same expansion can be done for $`T^1(k)`$:

$$T(k_0)^1=𝕀+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{(n1)!}a_{n\mathrm{}1}^{}T_{01\mathrm{}n}^{(n)}a_{1\mathrm{}n}$$
(2.19)
### 2.4 Integrable hierarchy associated to $`𝒜_R`$

As in the case of undeformed oscillator algebra, one can introduce the following Hamiltonians

$$H_n=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^na^{}(k)a(k),n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(2.20)
They form an Abelian subalgebra of $`𝒜_R`$, and thus define a hierarchy. The generators $`a^{}(k)`$ and $`a(k)`$ are eigenvectors:

$$[H_n,a^{}(k)]=k^na^{}(k)\text{ and }[H_n,a(k)]=k^na(k)$$
(2.21)
Indeed, as we will see in the case of the Non Linear Schrödinger equation, these generators correspond to asymptotic states of the physical models associated to the hierarchy.

Moreover, this integrable hierarchy is also related to the quantum groups $`𝒰_R`$, thanks to the property:

###### Property 2.7

$`𝒰_R`$ generates integrals of motion for the hierarchy defined by the $`H_n`$’s.

$$[H_n,T(k)]=0$$
(2.22)
### 2.5 Fock space $`_R`$

We introduce the Fock space $`_R`$ of $`𝒜_R`$, with vacuum $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$a(k)\mathrm{\Omega }=0,k\text{ ; }_R=𝒜_R\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(2.23)
It can be decomposed into eigenspaces of $`H_n`$:

$$_R=_{p=0}^{\mathrm{}}_{k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_p}^{}d^pk_p(k_1,\mathrm{},k_p)$$
(2.24)
with

$$[H_n,x]=(k_1^n+k_2^n+\mathrm{}+k_p^n)x,x_p(k_1,\mathrm{},k_p)$$
(2.25)
Moreover, since $`𝒰_R`$ commutes with $`H_n`$, each $`_p(k_1,\mathrm{},k_p)`$ eigenspace provides a representation of $`𝒰_R`$. On this subspace, $`T(k_0)`$ acts by right multiplication by $`R_{01}(k_0,k_1)\mathrm{}R_{0p}(k_0,k_p)`$, so that $`_p(k_1,\mathrm{},k_p)`$ can be identified with the tensor product of $`p`$ evaluation representations $`𝒱(k_p)`$ of $`𝒰_R`$.

Note that the action of $`T(k_0)`$ on $`_p(k_1,\mathrm{},k_p)`$ allows to reconstruct the coproduct for $`𝒰_R`$, although $`𝒜_R`$ does not possess any coproduct (see  for more details).

## 3 Case with boundary

### 3.1 Integrable models with boundary

We remind here the results obtained by Mintchev et al. , following , on the quantum integrable systems with boundary. As for the case without boundary, the central role is played by an algebra which both encodes the asymptotic states of the system and the effect of the boundary.

###### Definition 3.1 (Boundary algebra $`_R`$)

To the same $`R`$-matrix, one can associate another algebra, the boundary algebra $`_R`$, with generators $`\stackrel{~}{a}_i(k)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_i^{}(k)`$ and $`b_{ij}(k)`$ ($`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$) and exchange relations:

$`\stackrel{~}{a}_1(k_1)\stackrel{~}{a}_2(k_2)=R_{21}(k_2,k_1)\stackrel{~}{a}_2(k_2)\stackrel{~}{a}_1(k_1)`$ (3.1)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}_1^{}(k_1)\stackrel{~}{a}_2^{}(k_2)=\stackrel{~}{a}_2^{}(k_2)\stackrel{~}{a}_1^{}(k_1)R_{21}(k_2,k_1)`$ (3.2)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}_1(k_1)\stackrel{~}{a}_2^{}(k_2)=\stackrel{~}{a}_2^{}(k_2)R_{12}(k_1,k_2)\stackrel{~}{a}_1(k_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{12}\delta (k_1k_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b_{12}(k_1)\delta (k_1+k_2)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{a}_1(k_1)b_2(k_2)=R_{21}(k_2,k_1)b_2(k_2)R_{12}(k_1,k_2)\stackrel{~}{a}_1(k_1)`$ (3.3)
$`b_1(k_1)\stackrel{~}{a}_2^{}(k_2)=\stackrel{~}{a}_2^{}(k_2)R_{21}(k_2,k_1)b_1(k_1)R_{21}(k_2,k_1)`$ (3.4)
$`R_{12}(k_1,k_2)b_1(k_1)R_{21}(k_2,k_1)b_2(k_2)=b_2(k_2)R_{12}k_1,k_2)b_1(k_1)R_{21}(k_2,k_1)`$
$`b(k)b(k)=𝕀`$ (3.5)
We have completed the notations (2.6-2.8) by:

$`b_{12}(k_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}b_{ij}(k_1)e_ie_j^{}`$ (3.6)
$`b_1(k_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}b_{ij}(k_1)E_{ij}𝕀\text{ ; }b_2(k_2)={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}b_{ij}(k_1)𝕀E_{ij}`$ (3.7)
The $`_R`$ algebras have been introduced in , where they were shown to play a fundamental role in the study of integrable systems with boundaries. They allow for instance the determination of off-shell correlation functions. As for the case without boundary, a hierarchy can be defined for $`_R`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{2n}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^{2n}\stackrel{~}{a}^{}(k)\stackrel{~}{a}(k)$$
(3.8)
They satisfy $`[H_{2n},\stackrel{~}{a}^{}(k)]=k^{2n}\stackrel{~}{a}^{}(k)`$ and $`[H_{2n},\stackrel{~}{a}(k)]=k^{2n}\stackrel{~}{a}(k)`$ for $`k>0`$. Thus, $`\stackrel{~}{a}(k)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}^{}(k)`$ can be regarded as asymptotic states for the hierarchy with boundary.

As for the $`𝒜_R`$ algebra, one can defined an adjoint operation on the $`_R`$ algebra:

###### Property 3.2

Let $``$ be defined by

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}𝒜_R\hfill & & 𝒜_R\hfill \\ a(k)\hfill & & a^{}(k)\hfill \\ a^{}(k)\hfill & & a(k)\hfill \\ b^{}(k)\hfill & & b(k)\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.9)
together with $`(xy)^{}=y^{}x^{}`$ $`x,y_R`$ and $`R_{12}(k_1,k_2)^{}=R_{21}(k_2,k_1)`$.

Then $``$ is an anti-automorphism of $`_R`$.

Note that there is an automorphism on $`_R`$ given by :

$$\rho \{\begin{array}{ccc}_R\hfill & & _R\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{a}(k)\hfill & & b(k)\stackrel{~}{a}(k)\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{a}^{}(k)\hfill & & \stackrel{~}{a}^{}(k)b(k)\hfill \\ b(k)\hfill & & b(k)\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.10)
This automorphism encodes in algebraic terms of the effects of the boundary in the physical system. It is compatible with the adjoint operation:

$$\rho (x^{})=\rho (x)^{},x_R$$
(3.11)
###### Definition 3.3 (Reflection algebra $`𝒮_R`$)

The reflection algebra $`𝒮_R`$ is the subalgebra of the boundary algebra, with generators $`b_{ij}(k)`$ ($`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$). It has exchange relations:

$`R_{12}(k_1,k_2)b_1(k_1)R_{21}(k_2,k_1)b_2(k_2)=b_2(k_2)R_{12}(k_1,k_2)b_1(k_1)R_{21}(k_2,k_1)`$
$`b(k)b(k)=𝕀`$ (3.12)
$`𝒮_R`$ algebras enter into the class of $`ABCD`$-algebras introduced in . In the case of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with boundary, this algebra have been introduced by Cherednik . They correspond, in the boundary algebra approach, to the symmetries of the underlying model (with boundary). Indeed, we have the property (proved by direct calculation):

###### Property 3.4

The reflection algebra generates integrals of motion of the hierarchy associated to the $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{2n}`$’s:

$$[𝒮_R,\stackrel{~}{H}_{2n}]=0$$
(3.13)
We will study in more details the reflection algebra in the following.

### 3.2 Construction of $`_R`$ from $`𝒜_R`$

###### Theorem 3.5

Let $`𝒜_R`$ be a ZF algebra, and $`T(k)`$ its corresponding well-bred vertex operator. Let $`B(k)`$ be a $`N\times N`$ matrix such that

$`R_{12}(k_1,k_2)B_1(k_1)R_{21}(k_2,k_1)B_2(k_2)=B_2(k_2)R_{12}(k_1,k_2)B_1(k_1)R_{21}(k_2,k_1)`$
$`B(k)B(k)=𝕀_N`$ (3.14)
Then, the following generators obey a boundary algebra $`_R^B`$:

$`\stackrel{~}{a}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a(k)+b(k)a(k)\right)`$ (3.15)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}^{}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a^{}(k)+a^{}(k)b(k)\right)`$ (3.16)
$`b(k)`$ $`=`$ $`T(k)B(k)T(k)^1`$ (3.17)
$`B(k)`$ is called the reflection matrix.

From the form of $`b(k)`$ in term of $`T(k)`$, one can immediately deduce:

###### Corollary 3.6

The reflection algebra $`𝒮_R`$ is a subalgebra of the quantum group $`𝒰_R`$. It is also a coideal of $`𝒰_R`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }b^{ab}(k)=T^{ae}(k)T^1(k)^{gb}b^{eg}(k)\text{ i.e. }\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_R𝒰_R𝒮_R$$
(3.18)
Proof: From (3.17), one has obviously a morphism from $`_R`$ into $`𝒰_R`$. It remains to show that the kernel of this homomorphism is reduced to $`\{0\}`$. The construction has been done in  for the case of the Yangian $`Y(N)`$ and the corresponding reflection algebra. The proof in the general case just follows the same lines. One introduces a gradation $`gr`$ on $`𝒰_R`$ and $`𝒮_R`$

$$grb_{(n)}^{ab}=n\text{ and }grT_{(n)}^{ab}=n$$
(3.19)
and shows that morphism between the filtered algebras $`gr𝒮_R`$ and $`gr𝒰_R`$ has trivial kernel. The proof relies on a PBW theorem for the quantum group $`𝒰_R`$. For more details, see .

In the same way, still following , one proves the coideal property. Using the coproduct (2.12), one first gets (with implicit summation on repeated indices):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T^1(k)^{ab}=T^1(k)^{cb}T^1(k)^{ac}$$
(3.20)
which leads to

$`\mathrm{\Delta }b^{ab}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(T^{ac}(k)T^1(k)^{db}\right)B^{cd}(k)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(T^{ae}(k)T^{ec}(k)\right)\left(T^1(k)^{gb}T^1(k)^{dg}\right)B^{cd}(k)`$
$`=`$ $`T^{ae}(k)T^1(k)^{gb}T^{ec}(k)B^{cd}(k)T^1(k)^{dg}`$
$`=`$ $`T^{ae}(k)T^1(k)^{gb}b^{eg}(k)`$
The difference between the algebras $`_R^B`$ and $`_R`$ can be seen in the following lemma:

###### Lemma 3.7

In $`_R^B`$, the automorphism $`\rho `$ given in (3.10) is the identity:

$$\stackrel{~}{a}(k)=b(k)\stackrel{~}{a}(k)\text{ and }\stackrel{~}{a}^{}(k)=\stackrel{~}{a}^{}(k)b(k)$$
(3.21)
Remark: Strictly speaking, $`_R^B`$ corresponds to the coset (noted $`_R^\rho `$) of the abstract boundary algebra $`_R`$ (given by definition 3.1) by the relation $`\rho +id=0`$, so that the construction of $`_R^B`$ in theorem 3.5 defines inclusions of $`_R^\rho `$ into $`𝒜_R`$ (see also theorem 3.11).

###### Property 3.8

The Fock space $`_R`$ of $`𝒜_R`$ provides a Fock space representation for $`_R^B`$, defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{a}(k)\mathrm{\Omega }=0\text{ and }b(k)\mathrm{\Omega }=B(k)\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(3.22)
From the definition of the Fock space for $`𝒜_R`$, one has $`a(k)\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, and thus $`\stackrel{~}{a}(k)\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. The well-bred vertex operator $`T(p)`$ satisfies $`T(p)\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which implies $`b(k)\mathrm{\Omega }=B(k)\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Remark: In , the boundary algebra $`_R`$ has several Fock spaces, depending on the value of $`b(k)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In the present article, the algebra $`_R^B`$ has only one Fock space, but $`B`$ is given within the construction of $`_R^B`$, and there are as much $`_R^B`$-algebra constructions in the present approach, as there are Fock spaces in the approach of .

### 3.3 Vertex operator construction

One can do the same construction for the $`b`$ operator:

###### Property 3.9 (Reflection operators as vertex operators)

In term of the $`𝒜_R`$ generators, the reflection operators read

$`b_0(k_0)`$ $`=`$ $`𝕀+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{(n1)!}}a_{n\mathrm{}1}^{}\beta _{01\mathrm{}n}^{(n)}a_{1\mathrm{}n}`$
$`\beta _{01\mathrm{}n}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{01\mathrm{}n}^{(n)}B_0+B_0T_{}^{}{}_{01\mathrm{}n}{}^{(n)}+(n1){\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2}{p1}}\right)T_{0p+1\mathrm{}n}^{(np)}B_0T_{}^{}{}_{01\mathrm{}p}{}^{(p)}_p^{}`$
where the prime ’ indicates that one has to consider $`k_0`$ instead of $`k_0`$, $`B_0=lim_k\mathrm{}B(k)`$, and

$$_p^{}=R_{p+10}^1\mathrm{}R_{n0}^1=\underset{s=p+1}{\overset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{n}}{}}R_{0s}(k_0,k_s)$$
(3.23)
Let us stress that the expansion is done in term of the $`𝒜_R`$ generators $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$, not in term of $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}^{}`$, generators of $`_R`$. It is possible that such an expansion would lead to a more simple expression for $`\beta ^{(n)}`$.

### 3.4 Hierarchy for $`_R^B`$

###### Property 3.10 (Hierarchy for $`_R^B`$)

Let

$$\widehat{H}_n=\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^n\stackrel{~}{a}^{}(k)\stackrel{~}{a}(k)$$
(3.24)
Then $`\widehat{H}_{2n+1}`$ vanish identically in $`_R^B`$ and

$$\widehat{H}_{2n}=\stackrel{~}{H}_{2n}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^n\stackrel{~}{a}^{}(k)\stackrel{~}{a}(k)$$
(3.25)
Let $`a(k)`$, $`a^{}(k)`$ be the generators of the $`𝒜_R`$ algebra, and $`H_n`$ the Hamiltonian of the $`𝒜_R`$-hierarchy. Then, we have

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{2n}=H_{2n}+_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ka^{}(k)b(k)a(k)$$
(3.26)
In other terms, one can see the Hamiltonians with boundary as the Hamiltonians without boundary (bulk term) plus a boundary term.

Proof: The different equalities follows from the identities (3.21) and (3.14).

Remark : The hierarchy defines integrable systems with boundary defined by $`B(k)`$. In the framework we have adopted, the definition of the boundary is given by the data of the reflection matrix $`B(k)`$, as it is presented in , but the boundary algebra is naturally recovered here, contrarily to , where it is lacking for the calculation of off-shell correlation functions. On the other hand, in , the boundary algebra is the basic data (whence the possibility of computation of correlation functions), but the data of the boundary condition (i.e. the reflection matrix) is given with the choice of a Fock space $`_R^B`$. Thus, the present framework can be viewed as a bridge between the approaches  and .

This remark is confirmed in the following theorem (proved in ):

###### Theorem 3.11

Let $`B(k)`$ be a reflection matrix of $`𝒜_R`$, and $`b(k)=T(k)B(k)T^1(k)`$ the corresponding reflection operator. Let $`\rho _B`$ be defined by

$$\rho _B(a(k))=b(k)a(k)\text{ and }\rho _B(a^{}(k))=a^{}(k)b(k)$$
(3.27)
Then:

(i) $`\rho _B`$ is an automorphism of $`𝒜_R`$

(ii) $`_R^B`$ is the coset of $`𝒜_R`$ by the ideal $`Ker(\rho _Bid)`$

We present now a property which was already proved in  for the case of additive $`R`$-matrix $`R_{12}(k_1k_2)`$, but the reasoning is valid in full generality:

###### Property 3.12 (Integrals of motions of the hierarchy)

The reflection algebra $`𝒮_R^B`$ generates integrals of motion for the $`_R^B`$-hierarchy.

Still following the lines given in , one gets:

###### Property 3.13 (Spontaneous symmetry breaking)

In the Fock space representation, there is a spontaneous symmetry breaking of the symmetry algebra through

$$b(k)\mathrm{\Omega }=B(k)\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(3.28)
## 4 Conclusion

We have shown how to construct an integral hierarchy, together with is integrals of motion, starting from a single $`R`$-matrix which obeys to a unitary condition. It remains to construct the canonical fields associated to such hierarchy, as well as the physical systems which underlies the construction. This have been already done for the NLS hierarchy, and there is no doubt that the technics should apply in its full generality.

As far as the case with boundary is concerned, the present technics has to be related to the construction of boundary states (see e.g. ). These later relies on the existence of a reflection matrix. Since this matrix is also used here for the construction of the boundary algebra staring from the ZF algebra, a link between these two approaches should be exhibited.

An obvious generalization of this technics is the case of elliptic algebras, where the $`R`$-matrix depends also of extra parameters: if such a thing could be done, one would get a insight in models such as the XYZ model and show, as a by-product, that the elliptic algebras are integrals of motions of that type of models.

Another point which need to be clarified is the correspondence with the studies done in  for Toda systems with boundaries, where it has been shown that the integrals of motions are coideals subalgebras.


text:
# Time-Dependent Automorphism Inducing Diffeomorphisms, Open Algebras and the Generality of the Kantowski-Sachs Vacuum Geometry

## 1 Introduction

In a previous work  we have found and studied the group of those General Coordinate Transformations (GCTs) which leave the line element of a generic Bianchi Type Geometry, quasi-form invariant; i.e. preserve manifest spatial homogeneity. It was found that these GCTs, which mix time and space variables in the new space variables, induce special time-dependent automorphic changes on the spatial scale factor matrix $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }(t)`$, along with the corresponding changes on the lapse function $`N(t)`$ and the shift vector $`N^\alpha (t)`$. These transformations –called Time-Dependent Automorphism Inducing Diffeomorphisms (AIDs)– contain the maximum expected “gauge” freedom i.e. 4 arbitrary functions of time for each and every Bianchi Type. Using this freedom one can significantly simplify the generic line element and thus the resultant Einstein’s Field Equations (EFEs). Also, the number of the expected essential constants calculated in each case, is in agreement with the suggested, corresponding, number in the established literature (e.g.  and the references therein).

A basic point of this analysis, is that Bianchi Type Geometries, are characterized by the existence of a 3-dimensional isometry group of motions $`G_3`$, which acts simply transitively on each hypersurface of simultaneity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$. This means that there exists an invariant basis of 1-forms $`\sigma _i^\alpha (x)`$, satisfying:

$$\sigma _{i,j}^\alpha (x)\sigma _{j,i}^\alpha (x)=2C_{\mu \nu }^\alpha \sigma _j^\mu (x)\sigma _i^\nu (x)$$
(1.1)
where $`C_{\mu \nu }^\alpha `$ are the –space independent– structure constants of the corresponding isometry group $`G_3`$.

In the present letter we wish to extent this analysis in the case of open algebras; i.e. when the $`C_{\mu \nu }^\alpha `$s, are space dependent and thus become structure functions. This usually happens when the isometry group of motions $`G_r`$, acts multiply transitively on each hypersurface of simultaneity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ –see  for more details on the subject.

In 3 dimensions the KS Type spaces are defined  as those admitting an isometry group $`G_4`$ which acts on spacelike hypersurfaces, with no subgroup $`G_3`$ acting simply transitively on the hypersurfaces –but instead, an Abelian subgroup $`G_2`$, acting on these. Because each four dimensional Lie algebra contains a three dimensional subalgebra , there exists a three dimensional isometry group if a four dimensional one exists. Thus also for the KS model, there is a $`G_3`$ subgroup which however acts simply transitively only on two dimensional spacelike surfaces which consequently are of constant curvature (maximally symmetric two dimensional spaces). Kantowski  showed that two dimensional surfaces of zero and negative curvature give rise to four dimensional invariance groups, which have simply transitive three dimensional subgroups. Thus the only possibility left is that of the two dimensional surfaces of positive constant curvature, i.e. two dimensional spheres.

The Killing Vector Fields (KVFs), in $`r,\theta ,\varphi `$ coordinates, are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}K_1=Cos(\varphi )\frac{}{\theta }+Cot(\theta )Sin(\varphi )\frac{}{\varphi }\hfill & K_2=Sin(\varphi )\frac{}{\theta }+Cot(\theta )Cos(\varphi )\frac{}{\varphi }\hfill \\ K_3=\frac{}{\varphi }\hfill & K_4=\frac{}{r}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.2)
The corresponding Lie algebra, is:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\{K_i,K_j\}=\epsilon _{ij}^kK_k,i,j,k,\{1,2,3\}& \\ & \\ \{K_4,K_j\}=0,j\{1,2,3\}& \end{array}$$
(1.3)
where $`\epsilon _{ij}^k`$ is the Levi-Civita symbol. One may see that, $`K_1,K_2,K_3`$ correspond to the $`G_3`$ which acts on two dimensional spacelike surfaces of positive constant curvature (two spheres), while $`K_3,K_4`$ correspond to the Abelian $`G_2`$ which acts on the three dimensional spacelike hypersurfaces. If one demands that the generic 3-metric $`g_{ij}(x)`$ be invariant under all KVFs i.e. $`\mathrm{\pounds }_Kg_{ij}=0`$, one obtains the form $`g_{ij}(x)=A\delta _{\alpha \beta }\sigma _i^\alpha (x)\sigma _j^\beta (x)`$ where $`A`$ is a positive number, $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ is the identity 3-matrix and $`\sigma _i^\alpha (x)`$ a basis of 1-forms, which is invariant under the action of the $`G_2`$ only:

$$\sigma _i^\alpha (x)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& Sin(\theta )\end{array}\right)$$
(1.4)
They satisfy:

$$d\sigma ^\alpha =C_{\mu \nu }^\alpha \sigma ^\mu \sigma ^\nu \sigma _{i,j}^\alpha (x)\sigma _{j,i}^\alpha (x)=2C_{\mu \nu }^\alpha (x)\sigma _j^\mu (x)\sigma _i^\nu (x)$$
(1.5)
where $`C_{23}^3(x)=Cot(\theta )/2`$ is the only non vanishing, structure function.

If one considers transformations of the form $`x^i=f^i(\stackrel{~}{x}^j)`$ and demands the manifest splitting to be preserved, then when an invariant basis exists, one arrives at a 3-metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{x})=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }\sigma _i^\mu (\stackrel{~}{x})\sigma _j^\nu (\stackrel{~}{x})`$ –see  for details–, where $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\beta A\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\alpha `$ must belong to the automorphism group of the Lie Algebra i.e. must satisfy $`C_{\alpha \beta }^\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\beta =C_{\mu \nu }^\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega ^\xi `$. For the case of the basis (1.4), the elements of which form an open algebra, the notion of automorphisms can be extended; they must be the matrices satisfying (2.12)with zero left-hand side. Thus the following admissible matrices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha `$s are obtained:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\alpha =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1& \lambda _2& 0\\ 0& \lambda _5& 0\\ 0& \lambda _8& \lambda _9\end{array}\right)$$
(1.6)
with the condition $`x^2=ArcCot(Cot(\stackrel{~}{x}^2)/\lambda _5)`$. Notice that the subgroup of the above transformations designated by $`\lambda _5=1`$, is exactly what one would call automorphisms from the cotangent space point of view i.e. elements of $`GL(3,\mathrm{})`$ which leave the structure function tensor invariant in form and value. The most general 3-metric is thus given by the basis (1.4) and the matrix:

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\beta A\delta _{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{11}& \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12}& 0\\ \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12}& \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{22}& \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{23}\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{23}& \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{33}\end{array}\right)$$
(1.7)
It is note worthy that the $`(1,3)`$ component of the matrix (1.7), can not acquire a non zero value through the diffeomorphisms considered. One might think that other, more general coordinate transformations might fill this gap but this is not true: if one calculates the Ricci scalar of a 3-metric with such a non zero component of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\alpha \beta }`$ –in the given basis one forms–, one would find it to depend on $`\stackrel{~}{x}^2`$ and therefore, would conclude that this metric is not spatially homogeneous.

## 2 AIDs and the generality of the KS vacuum model

In the 3+1 decomposition –see e.g. – one makes use of the lapse function $`N`$ and the shift vector $`N^i`$ and sees the 4-dimensional line element parameterized as:

$$ds^2=(N^iN_iN^2)dt^2+2N_idx^idt+g_{ij}dx^idx^j$$
(2.1)
EFEs corresponding to (2.1), expressed in terms of the extrinsic curvature:

$$K_{ij}=\frac{1}{2N}(N_{ij}+N_{ij}\frac{g_{ij}}{t})$$

are:
$$H_0=K_j^iK_i^jK^2+R=0$$
(2.2a)
$$H_i=K_{ij}^jK_i=0$$
(2.2b)
$$_tK_j^iNKK_j^i+NR_j^i+g^{il}N_{jl}(K_{jl}^i+K_l^iN_j^lK_j^lN_l^i)=0$$
(2.2c)
If one restricts attention to spatially homogeneous spacetimes, and uses a set of basis 1-forms to decompose the spatial part of the metric and the shift vector, one will find that the line element (2.1) assumes the form:

$$ds^2=(N^\alpha (t)N_\alpha (t)N^2(t))dt^2+2N_\alpha (t)\sigma _i^\alpha (x)dtdx^i+\gamma _{\alpha \beta }(t)\sigma _i^\alpha (x)\sigma _j^\beta (x)dx^idx^j$$
(2.3)
Latin indices are spatial, with domain of definition $`\{1,2,3\}`$, while Greek indices number the different basis 1-forms, with the same domain of definition, and are lowered and raised by $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }(t)`$ and $`\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }(t)`$, respectively.

Insertion of relations (1.5), (2.3), into (2.2) results in the following set of Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs):

$$E_0K_\beta ^\alpha K_\alpha ^\beta K^2+R=0$$
(2.4a)
$$E_i\left(2K_\beta ^ϵC_{ϵ\rho }^\rho 2K_\rho ^ϵC_{\beta ϵ}^\rho +K_{\beta ,j}^\alpha \sigma _\alpha ^j\right)\sigma _i^\beta (x)K_{,i}=0$$
(2.4b)
$$E_\beta ^\alpha \dot{K}_\beta ^\alpha NKK_\beta ^\alpha +NR_\beta ^\alpha +2N^\xi (C_{\xi \rho }^\alpha K_\beta ^\rho C_{\xi \beta }^\rho K_\rho ^\alpha )K_{\beta ,m}^\alpha \sigma _\zeta ^m(x)N^\zeta $$
(2.4c)
and:

$$K_{ij}=\frac{1}{2N}\left(\dot{\gamma }_{\alpha \beta }+2\gamma _{\alpha \nu }C_{\beta \rho }^\nu N^\rho +2\gamma _{\beta \nu }C_{\alpha \rho }^\nu N^\rho \right)\sigma _i^\alpha \sigma _j^\beta K_{\alpha \beta }\sigma _i^\alpha \sigma _j^\beta $$
(2.5)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R_{ij}& =(C_{\sigma \tau }^\kappa C_{\mu \nu }^\lambda \gamma _{\alpha \kappa }\gamma _{\beta \lambda }\gamma ^{\sigma \nu }\gamma ^{\tau \mu }+2C_{\alpha \kappa }^\lambda C_{\beta \lambda }^\kappa +2C_{\alpha \kappa }^\mu C_{\beta \lambda }^\nu \gamma _{\mu \nu }\gamma ^{\kappa \lambda }+2C_{\beta \kappa }^\lambda C_{\mu \nu }^\mu \gamma _{\alpha \lambda }\gamma ^{\kappa \nu }\hfill \\ & +2C_{\alpha \kappa }^\lambda C_{\mu \nu }^\mu \gamma _{\beta \lambda }\gamma ^{\kappa \nu })\sigma ^\alpha _i\sigma ^\beta _j+2C^ϵ_{\mu ϵ,j}\sigma ^\mu _iC^ϵ_{\mu \nu ,l}\sigma ^l_ϵ\sigma ^\mu _i\sigma ^\nu _j\hfill \\ & \sigma _{ϵ_1}^l\gamma ^{ϵ_1ϵ_2}\gamma _{ϵ_3ϵ_4}C_{ϵ_5ϵ_2,l}^{ϵ_3}\left(\sigma _i^{ϵ_4}\sigma _j^{ϵ_5}+\sigma _i^{ϵ_5}\sigma _j^{ϵ_4}\right)R_{\alpha \beta }\sigma _i^\alpha \sigma _j^\beta \hfill \end{array}$$
(2.6)
as well as:

$$\begin{array}{cc}K_j^i=g^{iw}K_{wj}=\sigma _\alpha ^i\gamma ^{\alpha \omega }\sigma _\omega ^wK_{\rho \beta }\sigma _w^\rho \sigma _j^\beta =\sigma _\alpha ^i\sigma _j^\beta K_\beta ^\alpha & \\ & \\ K=g^{ij}K_{ij}=\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }K_{\alpha \beta }& \\ & \\ R=g^{ij}R_{ij}=C_{\mu \kappa }^\alpha C_{\nu \lambda }^\beta \gamma _{\alpha \beta }\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^{\kappa \lambda }+2C_{\beta \mu }^\alpha C_{\alpha \nu }^\beta \gamma ^{\mu \nu }+4C_{\alpha \mu }^\alpha C_{\beta \nu }^\beta \gamma ^{\mu \nu }4C_{\alpha \beta ,m}^\alpha \sigma _n^\beta g^{mn}& \end{array}$$

It is note worthy that the quantities with Greek indices or no indices, are time dependent only –although not manifestly. Equation set (2.4), forms what is known as a –complete– perfect ideal; that is, there are no integrability conditions obtained from this system. So, with the help of the third of (2.4c), (2.5), (2.6), it can explicitly be shown, that the time derivatives of (2.4a) and (2.4b) vanish identically. The calculation is straightforward –although somewhat lengthy; the Jacobi identity $`C_{\xi [\tau }^\alpha C_{\rho \omega ]}^\xi =0`$ (of course, because of the structure functions the appropriate Jacobi identity would, in general, contain a term $`C_{[\tau \rho ,j}^\alpha \sigma _{\omega ]}^j`$ which however vanishes for structure functions here considered). The vanishing of the time derivatives of the 4 constraint equations: $`E_0=0,E_i=0`$, implies that these equations, are first integrals of (2.4c) –moreover, with vanishing integration constants. Based on the intuition gained from the full theory, one expects that the freedom which corresponds to these integrals, is a reflection of the only known covariance of the theory; i.e. of the freedom to make arbitrary changes of the time and space coordinates.

Let us first consider the time reparameterization invariance; if a transformation:

$$t\stackrel{~}{t}=g(t)t=f(\stackrel{~}{t})$$
(2.7a)
is inserted in the line element (2.3), it is easily inferred that:
$$\gamma _{\alpha \beta }(t)\gamma _{\alpha \beta }(f(\stackrel{~}{t}))\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{~}{t})$$
(2.7b)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill N(t)\pm N(f(\stackrel{~}{t}))\frac{df(\stackrel{~}{t})}{d\stackrel{~}{t}}\stackrel{~}{N}(\stackrel{~}{t})\\ \hfill N^\alpha (t)N^\alpha (f(\stackrel{~}{t}))\frac{df(\stackrel{~}{t})}{d\stackrel{~}{t}}\stackrel{~}{N}^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{t})\end{array}$$
(2.7c)
Accordingly, $`K_\beta ^\alpha `$ transforms under (2.7a) as a scalar and thus (2.4a) and (2.4b) are also scalar equations, while (2.4c), gets multiplied by a factor $`df(\stackrel{~}{t})/d\stackrel{~}{t}`$. Thus, given a particular solution to equations (2.4), one can always obtain an equivalent solution, by arbitrarily redefining time. Hence, the existence of one arbitrary function of time in the general solution to Einstein’s equations (2.4), is understood.

In order to understand the presence of the other arbitrary functions of time, it is natural to turn our attention to the transformations of the 3 spatial coordinates $`x^i`$. To begin with, consider the transformations:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{t}=t& t=\stackrel{~}{t}\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{x}^i=g^i(x^j,t)& x^i=f^i(\stackrel{~}{x}^j,\stackrel{~}{t})=f^i(\stackrel{~}{x}^j,t)\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.8)
Under these transformations, the line element (2.3) becomes:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2& =\left(N^\alpha (t)N_\alpha (t)N(t)^2+2\sigma _i^\alpha (f)\frac{f^i}{t}N_\alpha (t)+\frac{f^i}{t}\frac{f^j}{t}\sigma _i^\alpha (f)\sigma _j^\beta (f)\gamma _{\alpha \beta }(t)\right)dt^2\hfill \\ & +2\sigma _i^\alpha (x)\frac{f^i}{\stackrel{~}{x}^m}\left(N_\alpha (t)+\sigma _j^\beta (x)\frac{f^j}{t}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }(t)\right)d\stackrel{~}{x}^mdt\hfill \\ & +\sigma _i^\alpha (x)\sigma _j^\beta (x)\gamma _{\alpha \beta }(t)\frac{f^i}{\stackrel{~}{x}^m}\frac{f^j}{\stackrel{~}{x}^n}d\stackrel{~}{x}^md\stackrel{~}{x}^n\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.9)
Since our aim, is to retain spatial homogeneity of the line element (2.3), we have to refer the form of the line element given in (2.9) to the old basis $`\sigma _i^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x})`$ at the new spatial point $`\stackrel{~}{x}^i`$. Since $`\sigma _i^\alpha `$ –both at $`x^i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}^i`$–, as well as, $`f^i/\stackrel{~}{x}^j`$, are invertible matrices, there always exists a non-singular matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)`$ and a triplet $`P^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)`$, such that:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \sigma _i^\alpha (x)\frac{f^i}{\stackrel{~}{x}^m}=& \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\sigma _m^\mu (\stackrel{~}{x})\frac{f^i}{\stackrel{~}{x}^m}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\sigma _m^\beta (\stackrel{~}{x})\sigma _\alpha ^i(x)\hfill \\ \hfill \sigma _i^\alpha (x)\frac{f^i}{t}=& P^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\frac{f^i}{t}=P^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\sigma _\alpha ^i(x)\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.10)
The above relations, must be regarded as definitions, for the matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\alpha `$ and the triplet $`P^\alpha `$. With these identifications, the line element (2.9) assumes the form:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2& =\left((N_\alpha (t)+P_\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t))(N^\alpha (t)+P^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t))N(t)^2\right)dt^2\hfill \\ & +2\left(N_\alpha (t)+P_\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\sigma _m^\beta (\stackrel{~}{x})dtd\stackrel{~}{x}^m\hfill \\ & +\gamma _{\alpha \beta }(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\beta (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\sigma _m^\mu (\stackrel{~}{x})\sigma _n^\nu (\stackrel{~}{x})d\stackrel{~}{x}^md\stackrel{~}{x}^n\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.11)
Consistency requirements, such as the non trivial action of the transformation under discussion, change the character of (2.10), from definitions to a set of first-order highly non-linear Partial Differential Equations (PDEs) for the unknown functions $`f^i`$. The existence of local solutions to these equations is guaranteed by Frobenius theorem  as long as the necessary and sufficient conditions:

$$\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}^j}\left(\frac{f^i}{\stackrel{~}{x}^m}\right)\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}^m}\left(\frac{f^i}{\stackrel{~}{x}^j}\right)=0$$

$$\frac{}{t}\left(\frac{f^i}{\stackrel{~}{x}^m}\right)\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}^m}\left(\frac{f^i}{t}\right)=0$$

hold. These integrating conditions, with repeated use of (1.5), result in:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\beta ,m}^\xi (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\sigma _n^\beta (\stackrel{~}{x})\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\beta ,n}^\xi (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\sigma _m^\beta (\stackrel{~}{x})& =2(C_{\alpha \beta }^\xi (x)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\beta (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\hfill \\ & C_{\mu \nu }^\omega (\stackrel{~}{x})\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega ^\xi (\stackrel{~}{x},t))\sigma ^\mu _m(\stackrel{~}{x})\sigma ^\nu _n(\stackrel{~}{x})\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.12)
$$\frac{1}{2}P_{,m}^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)=\left(\frac{1}{2}\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\beta ^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)C_{\mu \nu }^\alpha (x)P^\mu (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\nu (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\right)\sigma _m^\beta (\stackrel{~}{x})$$
(2.13)
The line element (2.9) can be written, more concisely:

$$ds^2(\stackrel{~}{N}^\alpha \stackrel{~}{N}_\alpha \stackrel{~}{N}^2)dt^2+2\stackrel{~}{N}_\alpha \sigma _i^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x})d\stackrel{~}{x}^idt+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\alpha \beta }\sigma _i^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x})\sigma _j^\beta (\stackrel{~}{x})d\stackrel{~}{x}^id\stackrel{~}{x}^j$$
(2.14)
with the allocations:

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^\mu (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\nu (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\gamma _{\mu \nu }(t)$$
(2.15a)
$$\stackrel{~}{N}_\alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^\beta (\stackrel{~}{x},t)(N_\beta (t)+P^\rho (\stackrel{~}{x},t)\gamma _{\rho \beta }(t))\text{and thus}\stackrel{~}{N}^\alpha =S_\beta ^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)(N^\beta (t)+P^\beta (\stackrel{~}{x},t))$$
(2.15b)
$$\stackrel{~}{N}(t)=N(t)$$
(2.15c)
(where $`S=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$)

In order for the transformation (2.8) to preserve the splitting of the 3-metric, into spatial and temporal parts, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\alpha \beta }=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\alpha \beta }(t)`$ in (2.15a), one must restrict to the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha (t)`$. Indeed, such a partial –because of space independence– solution to the system (2.12), exists:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha (t)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1(t)& \lambda _2(t)& 0\\ 0& \lambda _5(t)& 0\\ 0& \lambda _8(t)& \lambda _9(t)\end{array}\right)$$
(2.16)
under the condition:

$$x^2=ArcCot(\frac{Cot(\stackrel{~}{x}^2)}{\lambda _5(t)})$$
(2.17)
i.e.: $`x^2=f^2(\stackrel{~}{x}^2,t)`$, as far as the transformation (2.8) is concerned. This is the automorphism group for the KS Type models. Then, equations (2.13) –in view of (2.17)– result in:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha (t)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1& \lambda _2(t)& 0\\ 0& \lambda _5& 0\\ 0& \lambda _8(t)& \lambda _9\end{array}\right)$$
(2.18a)
$$P^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)=(\lambda _2^{}(t)\stackrel{~}{x}^2+h_1(t),0,Sin(\stackrel{~}{x}^2)\left(h_2(t)+\lambda _8^{}(t)Ln\left(Tan(\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}^2}{2})\right)\right))$$
(2.18b)
where the prime, denotes temporal differentiation and $`\lambda _2(t)`$, $`\lambda _8(t)`$, $`h_1(t)`$, $`h_2(t)`$, are arbitrary functions of time.

At this point, it must be observed that spatial homogeneity implies that the Ricci scalar is space independent, on a given –albeit arbitrary– hypersurface of simultaneity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$. Through computing facility, one may see that this requirement, restricts the possible admissible forms of the scale factor matrix $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }(t)`$, to the set:

$$\gamma _{\alpha \beta }(t)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\gamma _{11}(t)& \gamma _{12}(t)& 0\\ \gamma _{12}(t)& \gamma _{22}(t)& \gamma _{23}(t)\\ 0& \gamma _{23}(t)& \gamma _{33}(t)\end{array}\right)$$
(2.19)
We now conclude this section, by describing the –somehow lengthly but mostly algebraic– algorithm of the application of these results to the most general admissible 3-metric for the KS vacuum.
To this end, consider the most general metric of type (2.19), with a lapse function $`N(t)`$ and a full shift vector $`N^\alpha (t)`$ present, in a system of local coordinates $`(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$, and a transformation of the type (2.8) –under the condition (2.17)– to a new set of local coordinates $`(t,\stackrel{~}{r},\stackrel{~}{\theta },\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$. In this new “frame”, the lapse function, the shift vector and the 3-metric, can be found using the transformation laws (2.15a), (2.15b), (2.15c), where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha (t)`$ and $`P^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{x},t)`$ are to be calculated from (2.18).
Using the freedom provided by the temporal functions $`\lambda _2(t)`$ and $`\lambda _8(t)`$, the initial scale factor matrix is brought to a diagonal form, called “final scale factor matrix”, –which depends on some combinations of the elements of the initial scale factor matrix. The corresponding alterations to the lapse function and the shift vector, can also be found; the lapse function remains unchanged and the “final shift vector”, depends on some combinations of the initial shift vector, and the elements of the initial scale factor matrix.
Inserting these “final quantities” into the linear constraints (2.4b), it is found that the shift vector must be zero –expect for its first component, in which the EFEs are “transparent” and thus at one’s disposal– and some correlations on the combinations of the elements of the initial scale factor matrix appearing, which bring the diagonal “final scale factor matric”, to the form $`\text{diag}(\gamma _{11}(t),\gamma _{22}(t),\gamma _{22}(t))`$. Our purpose, is thus, fulfilled. Starting from the most general, admissible form of the 3-metric and a shift vector, through a particular class of GCTs, we end up to the KS metric, with no shift. This fact, is an alternative proof of not only the generality, but also of the irreducibility of the KS vacuum solution.

Our method makes it possible to give the KS vacuum metric in the most general form containing all the relevant “gauge” freedom; one has only to solve the reduced system and invert the transformation which enables the reduction. The solution of the reduced system is (in the time gauge $`\gamma _{22}(t)=t^2`$):

$$ds^2=(\frac{C}{t}1)^1dt^2+(\frac{C}{t}1)dr^2+t^2d\theta ^2+t^2Sin(\theta )^2d\varphi ^2$$
(2.20)
where $`C`$, is a constant. Therefore, using (2.18) one can write the most general metric –in matrix notation– of the KS type:

$$\gamma _{\text{Most General}}(t)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^T(t)\gamma _{KS}(f(t))\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)$$
(2.21)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^\alpha `$ is to be given by (2.18a) and:

$$N(t)=f^{}(t)(\frac{C}{f(t)}1)^{1/2}$$
(2.22)
$$N^\alpha (t)=S_\beta ^\alpha (t)P^\beta (f(t))$$
(2.23)
where $`P^\beta `$ is to be given by (2.18b) and $`S=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$.

## 3 Discussion

We have considered the set of GCTs which preserve manifest spatial homogeneity for the case of symmetry groups acting multiply transitively on the hypersurfaces of simultaneity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ (1.2), (1.3). This implies that the associated basis 1-forms satisfy an open algebra (1.5). The transformations found (2.8), (2.10) mix space and time in the new space variables, their existence is guaranteed by the Frobenious Theorem (2.12), (2.13) and their effect on the general spatially homogeneous line element (2.3) and/or (2.14), (2.15) can be used to simplify the reduced EFEs, (2.4). In this way an alternative proof is given, of the fact that the well known KS vacuum metric (2.20) is the irreducible form of the most general geometry admitting $`G_4`$ invariant homogeneous hypersurfaces. The closed form of this metric (2.21), (2.22), (2.23), exhibiting all the relevant “gauge” freedom in arbitrary functions of time, is also given.

The merits of this analysis can be most easily brought forward by comparing it to the original derivation: the 3-dimensional KVFs (1.2) are first trivially prolonged to spacetime vectors by adding to each of them a vanishing time component; then one demands for these vectors to be symmetries of the spacetime metric sought for. This results in the well known form of the KS vacuum metric (modulo a $`g_{01}`$ component). Implicit in the above derivation is the following important assumption: the space variables in which the original KVFs are given, are to be identified to the spatial coordinates of the Gauss normal system of the requested metric (an assumption which justifies the choice $`g_{01}=0`$, a posteriori).
On the contrary, the analysis here presented makes no such assumption. The coordinates in which the original KVFs –and thus the basis 1-forms– are given can be any of the set obtained in (2.8). Consequently the scale factor matrix can be filled with non vanishing elements –along with the existence of non vanishing shift. Then the linear constraint EFEs ensure that when, through the effect of a particular AID (2.18a), the scale factor matrix is cast into a diagonal form, the shift vanishes.

Lastly we would like to point out that our analysis is susceptible to generalization for the cases of lesser symmetry, say when there exist only two KVFs: one must first find a basis 1-forms –invariant under the action of these KVFs–, assume a splitting of the spatial metric of the form $`g_{ij}(t,x)=\gamma _{\alpha \beta }\sigma _i^\alpha (x)\sigma _j^\beta (x)`$, where the “scale factor” matrix will be supposed to depend not only on $`t`$, but also on the unique combination of the $`x^i`$ that has zero Lie derivative with respect to the KVFs. Then the integrability conditions will give spatial coordinate transformations which hopefully will simplify the EFEs.

Acknowledgements
One of us (G.O. Papadopoulos) is currently a scholar of the Greek State Scholarships Foundation (I.K.Y.) and acknowledges the relevant financial support.