format: text

text:
# References

COVARIANTLY QUANTIZED SPINNING PARTICLE AND ITS POSSIBLE CONNECTION TO NON-COMMUTATIVE SPACE-TIME
Subir Ghosh

Physics and Applied Mathematics Unit,

Indian Statistical Institute,

203 B. T. Road, Calcutta 700108,

India.

Abstract:
Covariant quantization of the Nambu-Goto spinning particle in 2+1-dimensions is studied. The model is relevant in the context of recent activities in non-commutative space-time. From a technical point of view also covariant quantization of the model poses an interesting problem: the set of second class constraints (in the Dirac classification scheme) is reducible. The reducibility problem is analyzed from two contrasting approaches: (i) the auxiliary variable method  and (ii) the projection operator method . Finally in the former scheme, a Batalin-Tyutin quantization has been done. This induces a mapping between the non-commutative and the ordinary space-time. BRST quantization programme in the latter scheme has also been discussed.

Keywords: constraints, non-commutative space-time, Batalin-Tyutin quantization, spinning particle.

PACS Numbers: 02.40.Gh , 11.10Ef, 11.90.+t , .05.30.Pr

The recent activity in Non-Commutative (NC) field theory  and more generally concerning NC space-time  has recreated a lot of interest in the study of physically motivated models, where the NC feature appears naturally. The well-known Landau problem, (of a charged particle confined in a plane in the presence of a magnetic field in the perpendicular direction), is one such example. In an earlier paper  we have pointed out that the bosonic Spinning Particle Model (SPM), originally proposed by Hanson and Regge , is relevant for theories in NC space-time. As we shall show in detail, (this was also pointed out briefly in ), the SPM can provide a direct mapping between ordinary (that is commuting) and NC space-time.

The Nambu Goto construction of the SPM , by itself, is an interesting example of a relativistic theory having a non-linear and non-abelian constraint structure. An added feature is that the system of Second Class Constraints  is reducible in nature if manifest Lorentz covariance is to be maintained. The present work focuses on the last point since some of the corresponding results in a non-covariant setup have already been presented by us in . Quite obviously the non-covariant results are somewhat inelegant and will be difficult to use in a relativistic theory. We will discuss the preliminary steps leading towards a BRST quantization of the SPM in a manifestly covariant way, along the lines of .

According to the Dirac classification scheme of Hamiltonian analysis of a constraint system , the SPM has both First Class Constraints (FCC) and a reducible system of Second Class Constraints (SCC). The former generate gauge invariance whereas the latter restrict the phase space manifold along with a modification in the canonical symplectic structure. Reducibility in a non-linear SCC system is a novel feature and possibly the present work is the first example where a nonlinear reducible SCC system is quantized. The reducibility problem for the SCCs of the SPM in a covariant framework has to be addressed first before one can embark upon a conventional BRST quantization of a set of reducible FCCs. The problem of reducibility will be handled by two very distinct approaches, i.e. the Auxiliary Variable method  and the Projection Operator method .

The BRST programme , in Auxiliary Variable method , proceeds in three stages: In stage (i) the reducibility in the SCC system is taken care of by introducing a set of auxiliary degrees of freedom. This enlargement of the phase space modifies the original reducible SCCs and converts them in to an irreducible (or independent) set. However, care should be taken to see that the extension does not affect the physical, (i.e. original), phase space. In stage (ii), the set of irreducible SCCs are further modified by bringing in the Batalin-Tyutin  variables so that the SCCs are transformed to FCCs. Subsequently in stage (iii), the conventional BRST quantization is to be performed. Note that no ghost for ghosts appear here, (as is customary in any reducible theory), since the reducibility is removed in stage (i).

In the Projection Operator formalism , the reducibility problem is solved by the construction of a projection operator which projects out a maximal set of weakly involutive constraints, i.e. FCCs, (from the SCC system), with which a generalization of the standard BRST quantization is possible. In this scheme, ghost for ghosts do appear. It might be interesting to see if the auxiliary variables of the former method and secondary ghosts of the latter method are related. Indeed, the inherent nonlinearity and non-abelian nature of the SPM constraint system is a real test of the viability of the above schemes  in arbitrary models.

The connection between SPM and NC space-time is discussed here in the auxiliary variable method. After the second stage of extension of the phase space, (where the BT variables appear), we demonstrate the existence of a mapping between the NC space-time coordinate and the normal one, via the auxiliary BT degrees of freedom . The analogous results in a manifestly non-covariant setup were derived in . Following the BT prescription  in the SPM, the NC space-time coordinate operators are expressible as normal space-time coordinates, appropriately extended by BT contributions. This provides the mapping between the NC and ordinary space-times in the extended phase space. As has been noticed in earlier studies of nonlinear theories , the possibility of an infinite number of higher order Batalin-Tyutin (BT) variable contributions in some of the physically relevant operators manifests here also.

The paper is organized as follows. In section II a brief resume of the SPM is provided, which also helps us to fix the notations. Section III deals with the application of the Auxiliary Variable method in SPM. In section IV, the relevant formulas for the BT quantization are provided and subsequently the method is applied to the irreducible set of SCCs in SPM, obtained in the previous section. The connection with the NC space-time is also elucidated here. In section V the Projection Operator in the context of SPM is derived. Necessary steps for the subsequent BRST quantization in the present case has been provided. Determination of the explicit structure of the Projection operator in a complex model is very important since its existence was only suggested in . Sections III-V comprise the main body of the work. The paper is concluded with a discussion in section VI.

II. SPINNING PARTICLE MODEL: A BRIEF RESUME

The 3+1-dimensional Nambu-Goto Lagrangian of the SPM, originally proposed by Hanson and Regge  is,

$$L=[M^2a_1+\frac{J^2}{2}a_2+2MJ(\frac{1}{2}a_1a_2+a_3)^{\frac{1}{2}}]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(1)
The notations of  are used, where

$$u^\mu =\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau },\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^\mu \frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\rho \nu }}{d\tau }=\sigma ^{\nu \mu }$$

and the dynamical variables entering $`L`$ are

$$a_1=u^\mu u_\mu ,a_2=\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu },a_3=u_\mu \sigma ^{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\nu \lambda }u^\lambda ,a_4=det\sigma =\frac{1}{16}(\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }^{})^2,\sigma _{\mu \nu }^{}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }\sigma ^{\rho \lambda }.$$
(2)
Here $`(x^\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu })`$ is a Poincare group element and also a set of dynamical variables of the theory, with

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^{\rho \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu \rho }=g^{\mu \nu },g^{00}=g^{ii}=1.$$

In order to discuss the Hamiltonian formulation, we define the canonically conjugate momenta as,

$$P^\mu \frac{L}{u_\mu }=L^1[M^2u^\mu +\frac{MJ}{(\frac{a_1a_2}{2}+a_3)^{\frac{1}{2}}}(\frac{1}{2}a_2u^\mu +\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\nu \lambda }u^\lambda )],$$
(3)
$$S^{\mu \nu }\frac{L}{\sigma _{\mu \nu }}=L^1[J^2\sigma ^{\mu \nu }+\frac{MJ}{(\frac{a_1a_2}{2}+a_3)^{\frac{1}{2}}}(a_1\sigma ^{\mu \nu }+(u^\mu \sigma ^{\nu \lambda }u^\nu \sigma ^{\mu \lambda })u_\lambda )].$$
(4)
One immediately finds the primary constraints,

$$P^\mu P_\mu =M^2(1+\frac{J^2}{L^2}\frac{a_1a_4}{(\frac{a_1a_2}{2}+a_3)}),S^{\mu \nu }S_{\mu \nu }=2J^2,S^{\mu \nu }P_\nu =0.$$
(5)
This particle model is somewhat unconventional because of the operator valued ”mass” which can only reduce to the standard form for $`a_40`$. However, we have shown  that in 2+1-dimensions, this complication can be avoided with the Lagrangian posited by us,

$$L=[M^2a_1+\frac{J^2}{2}a_2+MJϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }u_\mu \sigma _{\nu \lambda }]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(6)
With the conjugate momenta,

$$P^\mu =\frac{L}{u_\mu }=L^1[M^2u^\mu +\frac{MJ}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }\sigma _{\nu \lambda }]$$
(7)
$$S^{\mu \nu }=\frac{L}{\sigma _{\mu \nu }}=\frac{L^1}{2}[J^2\sigma ^{\mu \nu }+MJϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }u_\lambda ]$$
(8)
we obtain the constraints as,

$$P^\mu P_\mu =M^2,S^{\mu \nu }S_{\mu \nu }=2J^2,$$
(9)
$$S^{\mu \nu }P_\nu =0.$$
(10)
(9) constitutes the Casimir operators. This model has been successfully used  in the context of anyons, i.e. excitations in 2+1-dimensions, having arbitrary spin and statistics . Since the NC feature of the resulting space-time coordinates is also preserved in 2+1-dimensions from now on we will work in 2+1-dimensions. An additional set of constraints are introduced, (for a detailed discussion see ) and the full set of constraints are,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1P^\mu P_\mu M^2,\mathrm{\Psi }_2S^{\mu \nu }S_{\mu \nu }2J^2,$$
(11)
$$\mathrm{\Theta }_1^\mu S^{\mu \nu }P_\nu ,\mathrm{\Theta }_2^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^{0\mu }\frac{P^\mu }{M},\mu =0,1,2.$$
(12)
111Note that instead of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ as above, one can equivalently use $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }S_{\mu \nu }P_\lambda MJ,`$ which incidentally defines the Pauli Lubanski scalar.

With the help of the following canonical Poisson Brackets (PB),

$$\{P^\mu ,x^\nu \}=g^{\mu \nu },\{P^\mu ,P^\nu \}=0,\{x^\mu ,x^\nu \}=0$$
(13)
$$\{S^{\mu \nu },S^{\lambda \sigma }\}=S^{\mu \lambda }g^{\nu \sigma }S^{\mu \sigma }g^{\nu \lambda }+S^{\nu \sigma }g^{\mu \lambda }S^{\nu \lambda }g^{\mu \sigma },$$

$$\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{0\mu },S^{\nu \sigma }\}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{0\nu }g^{\mu \sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{0\sigma }g^{\mu \nu },\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{0\mu },\mathrm{\Lambda }^{0\nu }\}=0$$
(14)
we compute the constraint algebra, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ trivially commutes with all the constraints and the rest of the non-zero PBs between the constraints are,

$$\{\mathrm{\Psi }_2,\mathrm{\Theta }_2^\mu \}=4(S^{\mu \lambda }\mathrm{\Theta }_{2\lambda }+\frac{1}{M}\mathrm{\Theta }_1^\mu ),\{\mathrm{\Psi }_2,\mathrm{\Theta }_1^\mu \}=0$$
(15)
$$\{\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ^\mu ,\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta ^\nu \}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu },\alpha ,\beta =1,2,$$
(16)
where,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^{\mu \nu }\{\mathrm{\Theta }_1^\mu ,\mathrm{\Theta }_2^\nu \}=\frac{1}{M}(M^2g^{\mu \nu }P^\mu P^\nu )P^\nu \mathrm{\Theta }_2^\mu +g^{\mu \nu }(P.\mathrm{\Theta }_2)+\frac{1}{M}g^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Psi }_1,$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{22}^{\mu \nu }\{\mathrm{\Theta }_2^\mu ,\mathrm{\Theta }_2^\nu \}=0,\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}^{\mu \nu }\{\mathrm{\Theta }_1^\mu ,\mathrm{\Theta }_1^\nu \}=M^2S^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Psi }_1S^{\mu \nu }+P^\mu \mathrm{\Theta }_1^\nu P^\nu \mathrm{\Theta }_1^\mu .$$
(17)
One can see that the constraint algebra for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ,(\alpha =1,2)`$, closes whereas, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }`$ being non-trivial even on the constraint surface, indicates the presence of SCCs. Hence, according to the Dirac classification scheme , $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ^\mu `$ constitute FCCs and SCCs respectively. Demanding time persistence of the FCCs will generate no further constraints since the theory being reparametrization invariant, its Hamiltonian will be a combination of FCCs only.

It is not possible to compute the Dirac Brackets (DB)  from the SCCs since the system of SCC is reducible (i.e. not independent) due to the following identity,

$$P_\mu \mathrm{\Theta }_1^\mu =0.$$
(18)
Note also the presence of the relation,

$$(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^0+\frac{P_\mu }{M})\mathrm{\Theta }_2^\mu =\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_1}{M^2}.$$
(19)
However, since (19) involves an FCC, this is not a reducibility condition  and only restricts the number of independent degrees of freedom on the constraint manifold. Also, this system is first stage reducible since higher order reducibility conditions are absent.

The Hamiltonian of the system turns out to be that of a free particle due to the so called ”rigidity” property of the particle  meaning that when the SCCs are enforced strongly, the spin vector becomes proportional to the momentum vector. As stated before, the Hamiltonian being a combination of the FCCs (9), due to the above reason, it is sufficient to consider only the mass shell condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ in (9). One has to fix the time scale by choosing a gauge for the FCC $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, which can simply be

$$x_0=\tau .$$

Subsequently one has to construct the DBs for the above SCC pair and the Hamiltonian is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$,

$$HP_0=\sqrt{P_iP_i+M^2}.$$
(20)
Indeed, one can obtain the DBs by considering an irreducible set from $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ^\mu `$, (e.g. taking only the spatial components $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ^i`$, as in ), but this destroys the manifest covariance of the model. We now follow the method prescribed by Banerjee and Neto  to obtain the DBs without losing manifest covariance.

III. COVARIANT QUANTIZATION: AUXILIARY FIELD METHOD

In the formalism proposed in , the reducible SCCs ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ^\mu `$) are modified in an appropriate way by introducing auxiliary degrees of freedom, such that the modified SCCs ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu `$) become irreducible. At the same time, one has to ensure that the extension does not affect the physical phase space. In a practical sense, this means that the resulting DBs between the physical (i.e. original) degrees of freedom will have to be independent of the auxiliary variables or any parameters connected to them. The reducibility condition plays a crucial role in determining the structures of the modification terms (in the SCCs), which have to be such that on imposition of the reducibility conditions on the SCCs, the auxiliary variables vanish exactly.

The phase space is extended by introducing a canonical pair of auxiliary variables $`\varphi `$ and $`\pi `$ that satisfy $`\{\varphi ,\pi \}=1`$ and PB commute with the rest of the physical variables. The SCCs $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ^\mu `$ are modified in the way as shown below,

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_1^\mu S^{\mu \nu }P_\nu +k_1P^\mu \pi ;\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_2^\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda }^{0\mu }\frac{P^\mu }{M})+k_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{0\mu }+\frac{P^\mu }{M})\varphi ,$$
(21)
where $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ denote two arbitrary parameters. The constraint matrix is computed to be,

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }\{\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu ,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\beta ^\nu \}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{11}^{\mu \nu }& \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12}^{\mu \nu }\\ \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12}^{\nu \mu }& \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}^{\mu \nu }\end{array}\right)$$
(22)
where,

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{11}^{\mu \nu }\{\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_1^\mu ,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_1^\nu \}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}^{\mu \nu }=M^2S^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Psi }_1S^{\mu \nu }+P^\mu S^{\nu \lambda }P_\lambda P^\nu S^{\mu \lambda }P_\lambda ,$$

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{21}^{\mu \nu }\{\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_2^\mu ,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_1^\nu \}=\frac{1}{M}[r(1+k_2\varphi )+k_1k_2(1+r)]P^\mu P^\nu Mr(1+k_2\varphi )g^{\mu \nu },$$

$$r_1P^\mu P^\nu +r_2g^{\mu \nu },$$

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{22}^{\mu \nu }\{\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_2^\mu ,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_2^\nu \}=0,$$
(23)
with $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ given by,

$$r_1=\frac{1k_2^2\varphi ^2+2k_1k_2}{M(1+k_2\varphi )},r_2=M(1k_2\varphi ).$$

In the above, we have used

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{0\mu }=\frac{(k_2\varphi 1)P^\mu }{(k_2\varphi +1)M}\frac{r}{M}P^\mu ,$$
(24)
which follows directly from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_2^\mu =0`$.

Let the inverse of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }`$ be defined as,

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\nu \lambda }^{\beta \gamma }=\delta _\lambda ^\mu \delta _\alpha ^\gamma ,$$
(25)
and we consider a general form of the inverse matrix to be,

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\nu \lambda }^{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& a_{\nu \lambda }\\ a_{\nu \lambda }& b_{\nu \lambda }\end{array}\right)$$
(26)
with the entries,

$$a_{\nu \lambda }a_1P_\nu P_\lambda +a_2g_{\nu \lambda },b_{\nu \lambda }b(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{11})_{\nu \lambda }.$$
(27)
The parameters $`a_1,a_2`$ and $`b`$ are found to be,

$$a_1=\frac{1k_2^2\varphi ^2+2k_1k_2}{2M^3k_1k_2(1k_2\varphi )},a_2=\frac{1}{r_2},b=\frac{1}{r_2^2}.$$
(28)
The DBs  are now calculated for any two generic variables $`A`$ and $`B`$ from the defining equation,

$$\{A,B\}_{DB}=\{A,B\}\{A,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu \}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }\{\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\beta ^\nu ,B\},$$
(29)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\nu \lambda }^{\alpha \beta }`$ is defined in (25).

After a long and quite involved algebra we recover the DBs of the original (physical) variables in a covariant form,

$$\{x^\mu ,x^\nu \}_{DB}=\frac{S^{\mu \nu }}{M^2},\{P^\mu ,x^\nu \}_{DB}=g^{\mu \nu },\{P^\mu ,P^\nu \}_{DB}=\{P^\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu \lambda }\}_{DB}=\{P^\mu ,S^{\nu \lambda }\}_{DB}=0,$$
(30)
$$\{x^\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\sigma \nu }\}_{DB}=\frac{1}{M^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\sigma \alpha }(g_\alpha ^\mu P^\nu g^{\mu \nu }P_\alpha ),$$

$$\{x^\mu ,S^{\sigma \nu }\}_{DB}=\frac{1}{M^2}(S^{\mu \sigma }P^\nu S^{\mu \nu }P^\sigma ),$$
(31)
$$\{S^{\mu \nu },S^{\lambda \sigma }\}_{DB}=S^{\mu \lambda }(g^{\nu \sigma }\frac{P^\nu P^\sigma }{M^2})S^{\mu \sigma }(g^{\nu \lambda }\frac{P^\nu P^\lambda }{M^2})+S^{\nu \sigma }(g^{\mu \lambda }\frac{P^\nu P^\lambda }{M^2})S^{\nu \lambda }(g^{\mu \sigma }\frac{P^\mu P^\sigma }{M^2}),$$

$$\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha \mu },S^{\nu \sigma }\}_{DB}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha \nu }(g^{\mu \sigma }\frac{P^\mu P^\sigma }{M^2})\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha \sigma }(g^{\mu \nu }\frac{P^\nu P^\nu }{M^2})+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha \beta }P_\beta }{M^2}(P^\sigma g^{\mu \nu }P^\nu g^{\mu \sigma })$$

$$\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha \mu },\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\beta \nu }\}=0.$$
(32)
It is very important to note that the DBs between the physical degrees of freedom are totally independent of $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$, the parameters that appeared in conjunction with the auxiliary variables $`\varphi `$ and $`\pi `$. There is no need to take a vanishing limit of $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$. This feature ensures that the phase space extension has not disturbed the sector of physical variables. The importance of this has been repeatedly stressed in .

Notice that the DBs involving $`P^\mu `$ remain unchanged from the PBs but the non-commutativity in configuration space is reflected in the non-zero $`\{x^\mu ,x^\nu \}_{DB}`$.

Quite naturally, the DBs constituting an auxiliary variable, such as the one given below,

$$\{x^\mu ,\varphi \}_{DB}=\frac{(1k_2\varphi )(1+k_2\varphi )}{2k_2M^2},$$
(33)
will involve $`k_1`$ or $`k_2`$. Moreover, they will be undefined for the zero limit of these parameters. This completes the first stage extension and with this irreducible as well as covariant set of SCCs (21) we now proceed to the second stage extension in the Batalin-Tyutin formalism .

IV: BATALIN-TYUTIN EXTENSION AND NON-COMMUTATIVE SPACE-TIME

The basic idea behind the BT scheme  is to introduce additional phase space variables (BT variables) $`\varphi _a^\alpha `$, besides the existing degrees of freedom, such that all the constraints in the extended system are converted to FCCs. The advantage is that the FCC system, being a gauge theory, enjoys more freedom in the form of choice of gauge in quantization and the quantization procedure itself is well understood for a gauge theory in a canonical phase space. This means that one has to modify the original constraints and Hamiltonian accordingly by putting BT-extension terms in them. The way to achieve this at the classical level has been provided in . The main results of the BT prescription  relevant for our purpose are listed below.

Let us consider a set of constraints $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu ,\mathrm{\Psi }_l)`$ and a Hamiltonian operator $`H`$ with the following PB relations,

$$\{\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu (q),\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\beta ^\nu (q)\}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }(q)0;\{\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu (q),\mathrm{\Psi }_l(q)\}0$$

$$\{\mathrm{\Psi }_l(q),\mathrm{\Psi }_n(q)\}0;\{\mathrm{\Psi }_l(q),H(q)\}0.$$
(34)
In the above $`(q)`$ collectively refers to the set of variables present prior to the BT extension and ”$``$” means that the equality holds on the constraint surface. Clearly $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_l`$ are SCC and FCC  respectively. These constraints are actually the ones we have been working with, i.e. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu `$ are given in (21) and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ of the starting FCCs (9) remains unchanged, whereas $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ can be modified to make it an FCC, (at least up to low order in the auxiliary variables). However, this restriction is not important for our present discussion.

In systems with non-linear SCCs, (such as the present one), in general the DBs can become dynamical variable dependent  due to the $`\{A,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu \}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }`$ terms, leading to problems for the quantization programme. To cure this type of pathology, BT formalism is a systematic framework where one introduces the BT variables $`\varphi _a^\alpha `$, obeying

$$\{\varphi _\mu ^\alpha ,\varphi _\nu ^\beta \}=\omega _{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }=\omega _{\nu \mu }^{\beta \alpha },$$
(35)
where $`\omega _{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }`$ is a constant (or at most a c-number function) matrix, with the aim of modifying the SCC $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu (q)`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu (q,\varphi _\mu ^\alpha )`$ such that,

$$\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu (q,\varphi ),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\beta ^\nu (q,\varphi )\}=0;\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu (q,\varphi )=\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ^\mu (q)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^{\mu (n)}(q,\varphi );\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{\mu (n)}O(\varphi ^n)$$
(36)
This means that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu `$ are now FCCs and in particular abelian . A simple choice, obviously not unique, is

$$\omega _{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }=g_{\mu \nu }ϵ^{\alpha \beta },ϵ^{12}=1.$$
(37)
The explicit terms in the above expansion are ,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^{\mu (1)}=X_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu ^\beta ;\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }+X_{\alpha \delta }^{\mu \lambda }\omega _{\lambda \sigma }^{\delta \gamma }X_{\beta \gamma }^{\nu \sigma }=0$$
(38)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^{\mu (n+1)}=\frac{1}{n+2}\varphi _\sigma ^\delta \omega _{\delta \gamma }^{\sigma \lambda }X_{\lambda \nu }^{\gamma \beta }B_{\beta \alpha }^{\nu \mu (n)};n1$$
(39)
$$B_{\beta \alpha }^{\nu \mu (1)}=\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\beta ^{\nu (0)},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^{\mu (1)}\}_{(q)}\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^{\mu (0)},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\beta ^{\nu (1)}\}_{(q)}$$
(40)
$$B_{\beta \alpha }^{\mu \nu (n)}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m=0}^n\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\beta ^{\nu (nm)},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^{\mu (m)}\}_{(q,p)}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m=0}^n\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\beta ^{\nu (nm)},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^{\mu (m+2)}\}_{(\varphi )};n2$$
(41)
In the above, we have defined,

$$X_{\alpha \gamma }^{\mu \nu }X_{\nu \lambda }^{\gamma \beta }=\omega _{\alpha \gamma }^{\mu \nu }\omega _{\nu \lambda }^{\gamma \beta }=\delta _\alpha ^\beta \delta _\lambda ^\mu .$$
(42)
A very useful idea is to introduce the Improved Variable $`\stackrel{~}{f}(q)`$  corresponding to each $`f(q)`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(q,\varphi )f(\stackrel{~}{q})=f(q)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{f}(q,\varphi )^{(n)};\stackrel{~}{f}^{(1)}=\varphi _\mu ^\alpha \omega _{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }X_{\nu \lambda }^{\beta \delta }\{\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\delta ^\lambda ,f\}_{(q)}$$
(43)
$$\stackrel{~}{f}^{(n+1)}=\frac{1}{n+1}\varphi _\mu ^\alpha \omega _{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }X_{\nu \lambda }^{\beta \delta }G(f)_\delta ^{\lambda (n)};n1$$
(44)
$$G(f)_\beta ^{\mu (n)}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m=0}^n\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\beta ^{\mu (nm)},\stackrel{~}{f}^{(m)}\}_{(q)}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m=0}^{(n2)}\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\beta ^{\mu (nm)},\stackrel{~}{f}^{(m+2)}\}_{(\varphi )}+\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\beta ^{\mu (n+1)},\stackrel{~}{f}^{(1)}\}_{(\varphi )}$$
(45)
which have the property $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu (q,\varphi ),\stackrel{~}{f}(q,\varphi )\}=0`$. Thus the improved variables are FC or equivalently gauge invariant. The subscript $`(\varphi )`$ and $`(q)`$ in the PBs indicate the variables with respect to which the PBs are to be taken. It can be proved that extensions of the original FCC $`\mathrm{\Psi }_l`$ and Hamiltonian $`H`$ are simply,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_l=\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{~}{q});\stackrel{~}{H}=H(\stackrel{~}{q}).$$
(46)
One can also reexpress the converted SCCs as $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu \mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ^\mu (\stackrel{~}{q})`$. The following identification theorem,

$$\{\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B}\}=\stackrel{~}{\{A,B\}_{DB}};\{\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B}\}_{\varphi =0}=\{A,B\}_{DB};\stackrel{~}{0}=0,$$
(47)
plays a crucial role in this scheme in making contact with the DBs. Hence the outcome of the BT extension is the closed system of FCCs with the FC Hamiltonian given below,

$$\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\beta ^\nu \}=\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_l\}=\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\alpha ^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{H}\}=0;\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_l,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n\}0;\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_l,\stackrel{~}{H}\}0.$$
(48)
We will see that due to the non-linearity in the SCCs, the extensions in the improved variables, (and subsequently in the FCCs and FC Hamiltonian), turn out to be infinite series. This type of situation has been encountered before . In the present case, the solution for $`X_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }`$ in (38) is obtained as,

$$X_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{11}^{\mu \nu }& \frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }\\ 2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12}^{\mu \nu }& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(49)
The inverse of the above matrix, as defined in (42), is

$$X_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{2}(a_1P_\mu P_\nu +a_2g_{\mu \nu })\\ 2g_{\mu \nu }& a_2(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{11})_{\mu \nu }\end{array}\right).$$
(50)
The parameters $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ have already been defined in (28). Using (38), the one-$`\varphi `$ BT extensions in the SCCs are,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_1^{\mu (1)}=X_{11}^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu ^1+X_{12}^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu ^2=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{11}^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu ^1+\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^{2\mu },$$

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_2^{\mu (1)}=X_{21}^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu ^1+X_{22}^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu ^2=2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{12}^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu ^1.$$
(51)
It is easy to convince oneself that the $`B_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }`$ functions defined in (39,40,41) are in general non-vanishing giving rise to terms having higher powers in BT variables. Let us now compute the one-$`\varphi `$ extension in the $`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu `$, i.e. the improved variable corresponding to $`x_\mu `$, the canonical coordinate variable. Simplifying (43), we get,

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu ^{(1)}=(\varphi ^\alpha )^\nu ϵ_{\alpha \beta }X_{\nu \sigma }^{\beta \gamma }\{\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\gamma ^\sigma ,x_\mu \}_{(q)}$$

$$=[2(S_{\nu \mu }+k_1\pi g_{\nu \mu })+\frac{1}{M}(k_2\varphi 1)a_2(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{11})_{\nu \mu }](\varphi ^1)^\nu $$

$$+\frac{1}{2M}(1k_2\varphi )(a_1P_\mu P_\nu +a_2g_{\mu \nu })(\varphi ^2)^\nu .$$
(52)
Hence, up to one-$`\varphi _\mu ^\alpha `$ BT extension, it is straightforward to check the following relation,

$$\{x^\mu +\stackrel{~}{x}^{(1)\mu },x^\nu +\stackrel{~}{x}^{(1)\nu }\}=\frac{S^{\mu \nu }}{M^2}+(\varphi ^\alpha terms).$$
(53)
In the above calculation, one has to remember that the BT extended expressions for the FCCs has to be used. The PB between the full $`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu `$, (i.e. to all orders in $`\varphi ^\alpha `$), will satisfy

$$\{\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{x}^\nu \}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{S}^{\mu \nu }}{M^2}.$$
(54)
To ascertain the one-$`\varphi _\mu ^\alpha `$ term in the right hand side of the above PB, one has to compute extensions up to two-$`\varphi _\mu ^\alpha `$ in $`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu `$. Thus, we have explicitly derived the following relation,

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu =x_\mu +\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu ^{(1)}+(higher\varphi ^\alpha terms),$$
(55)
with $`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu ^{(1)}`$ given by (52). This is the cherished mapping between the NC space-time coordinate $`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu `$ and the usual space-time coordinate $`x_\mu `$. A similar type of mapping between an NC coordinate and a canonical coordinate was also proposed, (in a non-relativistic framework), in . However, it should be pointed out that $`x_\mu `$ in the above mapping (55) is truly the usual space-time coordinate, with correct Lorentz transformation properties, whereas the canonical coordinate introduced in  is not. The BRST quantization of this irreducible SCC system does not pose any technical complications.

The presence of non-commutativity has made a strong impact in recent years in High Energy Physics, ever since the appearance of the seminal work of Seiberg and Witten . Noncommutativity is induced in the open string boundaries, when the string moves in a constant two-form background Neveu-Schwarz field (or equivalently a magnetic field). The noncommutativity parameter is identified with the inverse of the constant magnetic field. Recently we have shown  that contrary to previous works  involving constraints, the non-trivial mixed boundary conditions are responsible for this noncommutativity. However, the issue of noncommutativity is quite alive and different avenues have to be explored to obtain the above feature. Exploiting the observation that noncommutativity appears in a particular choice of regularization in string theory, Seiberg and Witten  have provided an explicit map, (to the lowest nontrivial order in the noncommutativity pa! rameter), connecting noncommutative and ordinary gauge fields.The idea of equivalence between gauge orbits in ordinary and noncommutative space-time plays a pivotal role in extablishing the map. Apparantly, the noncommutativity of space-time is not exploited directly since one stays in ordinary the space-time and introduces extra interaction terms in the original model as noncommutative effects.

On the other hand, in  we have shown a new way of interpreting the Seiberg-Witten map  which is more geometric in nature and rests directly on space-time noncommutativity. In  the Seiberg-Witten map appears as one changes the argument of the gauge field from ordinary to noncommutative space-time in a particular way. This means that without going in to the concept of identifying gauge equivalence between noncommutative and commutative space-times, it is possible to recover the Seiberg-Witten map in a geometrical way. The spinning particle lives in an extended space having noncommutative and commutative sectors and gauge fields in these sectors can be connected by the Seiberg-Witten map. Precisely in this context the above spinning particle model can become relevant since they provide a natural framework for introducing noncommutativity in space-time, without any need to bring in external interactions. The details of this mechanism will be reported elsewhere.

V. PROJECTION OPERATOR METHOD

Recently a new scheme, the Projection Operator Method, has been proposed by Batalin, Lyakhovich and Marnelius , where one is able to quantize a constrained system, having a set of reducible SCCs and FCCs, in a manifestly covariant framework. A generalized BRST operator has also been posited in . The formalism is in complete contrast to the Auxiliary Variable approach  and BT extension  discussed in the previous sections. Here no non-physical degrees of freedom are introduced. Instead, the major task is the construction of an invariant projection operator that projects out the maximal subset of constraints in involution, (i.e. FCCs), from the full (reducible) set of constraints . With this set of reducible FCCs one can attempt a BRST quantization. However, the presence of SCCs causes an obstruction, which requires a generalization of the BRST operator . In  the authors make the crucial assumption that for a (reducible) set of constraints, with the PB algebra,

$$\{\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta \}=U_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma \mathrm{\Theta }_\gamma +\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta },$$
(56)
one can construct a suitable projection matrix $`P_\alpha ^\beta `$ satisfying,

$$P_\alpha ^\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_{\beta \gamma }P_\chi ^\gamma =0,P_\alpha ^\beta P_\beta ^\gamma =P_\alpha ^\gamma .$$
(57)
This will project out the reducible set of FCCs ,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ^{}=P_\alpha ^\beta \mathrm{\Theta }_\beta ,\{\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ^{},\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta ^{}\}0.$$
(58)
It is imperative to show that the above assumption works in a non-trivial model and the present work is probably the first one where its validity is demonstrated explicitly. The formalism  is applicable even in systems where one can not separate out the FCCs and SCCs without spoiling manifest covariance. However, as shown in section II, in our model this separation is possible. This slightly simplifies the problem since we have to consider only the reducible SCCs $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ^\mu `$ in (12).

The all important projection operator is given by the following matrix,

$$P_\alpha ^\beta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{M^2}S^{\mu \sigma }P_\sigma P^\nu & S^{\mu \nu }\\ \frac{1}{M^2}P^\mu P^\nu & (g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{M^2}P^\mu S^{\nu \sigma }P_\sigma )\end{array}\right).$$
(59)
This will lead to the FCCs $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ^{}=P_\alpha ^\beta \mathrm{\Theta }_\beta `$ whose closure property can be directly checked. Now one must enlarge the phase space by introducing ghosts, ghosts for ghosts etc. We follow the prescription of  and for a generic $`L`$’th stage reducible theory introduce the ghosts $`𝒞^a,\overline{𝒫}_a`$ and secondary ghosts $`𝒞^{a_r},\overline{𝒫}_{a_r}^{}`$ where $`r=1,..,L`$ and the ghosts satisfy

$$ϵ(𝒞^a)=ϵ(\overline{𝒫}_a)=ϵ_a+1,ϵ(𝒞^{a_r})=ϵ(\overline{𝒫}_{a_r}^{})=ϵ_{a_r}+r+1,r=1,..,L,$$

$$\{𝒞^a,\overline{𝒫}_b\}=\delta _b^a,\{𝒞^{a_r},\overline{𝒫}_{b_r}^{}\}=\delta _{b_r}^{a_r},r=1,..,L,$$

$$gh(𝒞^a)=gh(\overline{𝒫}_a)=1,gh(𝒞^{a_r})=gh(\overline{𝒫}_{a_r}^{})=r+1.$$
(60)
Here $`ϵ(𝒜)`$ and $`gh(𝒜)`$ denote the parity and ghost number of $`𝒜`$ and in the above $`ϵ(T_a)ϵ_a`$, where $`T_a`$ represents the full set of constraints. Let us now construct the following odd real function $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with ghost number $`1`$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=𝒞^aT_a+𝒞^{a_1}Z_{a_1}^a\overline{𝒫}_a(1)^{ϵ_a}+\underset{r=2}{\overset{L}{}}𝒞^{a_r}Z_{a_r}^{a_{r1}}\overline{𝒫}_{a_{r1}}(1)^{ϵ_{a_{r1}}}$$

$$+(1)^{ϵ_b}\frac{1}{2}𝒞^b𝒞^a\mathrm{\Delta }_{ab}^e\overline{𝒫}_e(1)^{ϵ_e}+(1)^{ϵ_a}𝒞^a𝒞_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{b_1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{b_1a}^{a_1}\overline{𝒫^{}}_{a_1}(1)^{ϵ_{a_1}}$$

$$+(1)^{(ϵ_b+ϵ_aϵ_e)}\frac{1}{6}𝒞^e𝒞^b𝒞^a\mathrm{\Delta }_{abe}^{a_1}\overline{𝒫^{}}_{a_1}(1)^{ϵ_{a_1}}+\mathrm{}$$
(61)
In the above we have defined the constraint algebra as,

$$\{T_a,T_b\}=C_{ab}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{ab}^eT_e,$$

and the reducibility conditions as,

$$Z_{a_r}^aT_a=0,r=1,..L.$$

The higher order reducibility conditions are of the form,

$$Z_{a_2}^{a_1}Z_{a_1}^a=0,$$

and so on. The higher order structure function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{b_ra}^{a_r}`$ follows from the requirement

$$\{T_a,Z_{a_r}^bT_b\}=0,$$

wheras $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{abe}^{a_1}`$ is induced by the Jacobi identity

$$J(T_a,T_b,T_e)\{\{T_a,T_b\},T_e\}+cyclicterms=0.$$

Rest of the structure functions will follow from still higher order Poisson Brackets. For a detailed discussion see for example .

In the present case, $`T_a(\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2,\mathrm{\Theta }_1^\mu ,\mathrm{\Theta }_2^\nu )`$ in (11,12) and our model is single stage reducible with $`L=1`$ (18). One can ascertain that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{b_1a}^{a_1}=0`$ from $`\{T_a,P^\mu \mathrm{\Theta }_{1\mu }\}=0`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{abe}^{a_1}`$ contributes only from the non-trivial Jacobi identity expression,

$$J(\mathrm{\Theta }_1^\mu ,\mathrm{\Theta }_1^\nu ,\mathrm{\Theta }_2^\sigma )=\frac{1}{M}(g^{\sigma \nu }P^\mu g^{\sigma \mu }P^\nu )\mathrm{\Psi }_1+(g^{\sigma \nu }\mathrm{\Theta }_2^\mu g^{\sigma \mu }\mathrm{\Theta }_2^\nu )\mathrm{\Psi }_1.$$
(62)
We drop the second term since it is quadratic in the constraints and hence is strongly vanishing. The rest of the higher order structure functions are zero. With the above inputs, the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=𝒞^1\mathrm{\Psi }_1+𝒞^2\mathrm{\Psi }_2+𝒞^{1\mu }\mathrm{\Theta }_{1\mu }+𝒞^{2\mu }\mathrm{\Theta }_{2\mu }$$

$$+𝒞^{}P^\mu \overline{𝒫}_{1\mu }+\frac{1}{2}𝒞^{2\mu }𝒞^{1\nu }((g_{\mu \nu }P_\sigma g_{\mu \sigma }P_\nu )\overline{𝒫}_2^\sigma +\frac{1}{M}g_{\mu \nu }\overline{𝒫}_1))+\frac{1}{2}𝒞^{1\mu }𝒞^{1\nu }S_{\mu \nu }\overline{𝒫}_1$$

$$+𝒞^{1\mu }P_\mu 𝒞^{1\nu }\overline{𝒫}_{1\nu }+\frac{1}{6M}𝒞^{2\mu }𝒞_{1\mu }𝒞^{1\nu }P_\nu \overline{𝒫}^{}.$$
(63)
Next an even real function $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ with ghost number zero is posited to be

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=𝒞^aP_a^b\overline{𝒫}_b(1)^{ϵ_b}+\underset{r=1}{\overset{L}{}}(1)^r𝒞^{a_r}P_{a_r}^{b_r}\overline{𝒫}_{b_r}(1)^{ϵ_{b_r}}+\mathrm{}$$
(64)
where the dots indicate higher powers of ghost terms. The functions $`P_{a_r}^{b_r}`$ are yet to be determined from the following relations ,

$$\{\mathrm{\Pi },\{\mathrm{\Pi },\mathrm{\Omega }\}\}=\{\mathrm{\Pi },\mathrm{\Omega }\},\{\mathrm{\Pi },\{\mathrm{\Pi },\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }\}\}\}=\{\mathrm{\Pi },\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }\}\}.$$
(65)
This leads to the cherished form of the generalized BRST charge

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\{\mathrm{\Pi },\mathrm{\Omega }\}$$
(66)
which obeys the nilpotency property,

$$\{\mathrm{\Omega }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\}=0.$$
(67)
In the present case, using (59), we get,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=𝒞^1\overline{𝒫}_1+𝒞^2\overline{𝒫}_2+\frac{1}{M^2}𝒞^{1\mu }S_{\mu \sigma }P^\sigma P^\nu \overline{𝒫}_{1\nu }$$

$$+𝒞^{1\mu }S_{\mu \nu }\overline{𝒫}_2^\nu +\frac{1}{M^2}𝒞^{2\mu }P_\mu P^\nu \overline{𝒫}_{1\nu }+\frac{1}{M^2}𝒞^{2\mu }P_\mu S^{\nu \sigma }P_\sigma \overline{𝒫}_{2\nu }𝒞^{}P^{}\overline{𝒫}^{}.$$
(68)
Computation of the last term is straightforward but tedious and is not pursued here. Just as in the irreducible case, in general one has to modify the Hamiltonian so that it has vanishing PB with the BRST charge $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. However, in the present case the Hamiltonian remains the same as in (20) due to its simple structure. In the subsequent quantization these functions are elevated to quantum operators and obviously they have to be properly ordered.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

The covariant quantization of the Nambu-Goto spinning particle model is analyzed and the relevance of this model in inducing a non-commutative space-time is demonstrated. The technical problem of covariant quantization in the present model is very subtle since the set of constraints comprise reducible Second Class Constraints apart from First Class Constraints. (The above classification follows from the prescription of Dirac .) Special methods have been devised to tackle the above mentioned reducibility problem. We have discussed here two schemes: (i) the auxiliary variable method  where the phase space is enlarged in an appropriate way and (ii) the projection operator method , where a (reducible) set of first class constraints is projected out from the set of second class constraints. The latter formalism has been proposed very recently and the present work constitutes a non-trivial application of the same. Construction of the projection operator as well as the necessary steps for the BRST quantization has been provided.

A number of projects to be pursued further immediately comes to mind: Firstly a thorough appraisal of the mapping between non-commuting and ordinary space-time that has been exhibited here, in the light of , and secondly a quantum BRST analysis of the model in the projection operator formalism taking into account the operator ordering problems. Also it has been suggested  that the Faddeev-Jackiw  method of symplectic quantization may be useful in the context of covariant quantization of the spinning particle model. Work is in progress in this direction as well.

Acknowledgements: It is a pleasure to thank Professor R.Banerjee and Professor R.Jackiw for helpful comments.


text:
# Brane Gravity from Bulk Vector Field

## Abstract

It is shown that Einstein’s equations on the brane can be received from the multi-dimensional vector field equations in pseudo-Euclidean space. The idea is based on the observation that the brane geometry can be equivalently described by the intrinsic metric or by the derivatives of its normal. From the other hand the normal to the brane can be constructed with the components of some multi-dimensional vector fields. For the both cases 4-dimensional effective action for gravity appears to be the same.

PACS numbers: 04.50.+h, 03.50.De, 98.80.Cq

Since the over 80 years old paper of Theodor Kaluza  it has been believed that Einstein’s equations are more fundamental then matter fields equations. In standard Kaluza-Klein approach matter fields are considered to be a part of multi-dimensional metric tensor. However, the difficulties of General Relativity are well known and it is still not clear whether gravity is a quantum field or some classical effective interaction.

Recently, it was shown that Plank’s scale $`M_{Pl}`$ can be constructed with the fundamental scale $`M`$ and the brane width $`ϵ`$ . On the brane, possibly, not only $`M_{Pl}`$, but Einstein equations can be effective as well. In multi dimensions the equations describing gravity can be quite different from Einstein’s equations.

Note that the first published suggestion about the unification of gravity and matter in multi dimensions (which was given by Gunnar Nordstrom  anticipating even General Relativity) was based on vector fields approach. Nordstrom started from 5-dimensional Maxwell’s equations and imposed also the ’cilinder condition’ (the fields should not depend on the fifth coordinate). He identified an extra component of vector-potential with the gravity potential required in his scalar gravity theory. In some recent papers these extra scalar components of multi-dimensional vector-potentials are used to explain Higgs mechanism on the brane .

In this paper we also use a multi-dimensional vector field to describe gravity on the brane, but do not follow the simple approach of Nordstrom. When in pseudo-Euclidean space a brane is embedded, multi-dimensional vector fields together with the brane geometry can imitate Einstein gravity on the brane. Here we don’t specify the nature of the brane, for example, it can be the kink solution of nonlinear equation of some multi-dimensional scalar field. We just show that solutions of 4-dimensional Einstein’s equations could be constructed with the solutions of multidimensional Maxwell’s equations. In this picture gravity exhibits tensor character only on the brane and graviton appears to be the combination of two 1-spin massless particles. We hope that in such approach geometrical unification of different interactions will be easier since Dirac equation also can be derived from the constrained Yang-Mills Lagrangian . Similar ideas inducing gravity (in the linear approximation) on some plane in multi dimensions was considered in  using analogies with elasticity theory.

We want to start with reminding the reader that any $`n`$-dimensional Riemannian space can be embedded into $`N`$-dimensional pseudo-Euclidean space with $`nNn(n+1)/2`$ . Thus, no more than ten dimensions are required to embed any 4-dimensional solution of Einstein’s equations with arbitrary energy-momentum tensor. Embedding the space-time with the coordinates $`x^\alpha `$ and metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ into pseudo-Euclidean space with Cartesian coordinates $`\varphi ^A`$ and Minkowskian metric $`\eta _{AB}`$ is given by

$$ds^2=g_{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta =\eta _{AB}h_\alpha ^Ah_\beta ^Bdx^\alpha dx^\beta =\eta _{AB}d\varphi ^Ad\varphi ^B.$$
(1)
Capital Latin letters $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$ labels coordinates of embedded space, while Greek indices $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$ enumerate coordinates in four dimensions. Existence of the embedding (1) demonstrates that the multi-dimensional ’tetrad’ fields $`h_\alpha ^A`$ can be expressed as a derivatives of some vector

$$h_\alpha ^A=_\alpha \varphi ^A.$$
(2)
In four dimensions when tetrad index run over only four values such relation is impossible in general and according to (1) it could be always written in multi dimensions.

Let’s suppose that in multi-dimensional flat space-time there exists (1+3)-brane with arbitrary geometry. In order to simplify demonstration of the idea, let us first consider the case of only one extra space-like dimension. Generalization for arbitrary dimensions and signature is obvious.

Let’s say that the equation of the branes surface in the Cartesian 5-dimensional coordinates $`X^A`$ has the form:

$$W(X^A)=0.$$
(3)
Introducing the function

$$\xi (X^A)=\frac{W(X^A)}{\sqrt{|_BW^BW|}},$$
(4)
the metric of pseudo-Euclidean bulk (1+4)-space can be transformed to the Gaussian normal coordinates

$$ds^2=d\xi ^2+g_{\alpha \beta }(\xi ,x^\nu )dx^\alpha dx^\beta .$$
(5)
Since $`\xi =0`$ is the equation of the hyper-surface, the induced metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }(0,x^\nu )`$, which determines the geometry on the brane, is the same 4-dimensional metric as used in (1) for the embedding.

Introducing unit normal vector to the brane

$$n^A=^A\xi |_{\xi =0},$$
(6)
one can decompose tensors of bulk space-time in a standard way (see e. g. ).

In the Gaussian system of coordinates (5) the Christoffel symbols on the brane are:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\alpha =h^{A\alpha }_\lambda h_{A\nu }.$$
(7)
Raising and lowering of Greek indices is made with the induced metric tensor $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ and Latin indices with 5-dimensional Minkowskian metric tensor $`\eta _{AB}`$. The Christoffel symbols containing two or three indices $`\xi `$ are equal to zero. The connections containing just one index $`\xi `$ are forming outer curvature tensor, which, after using (2), can be written as:

$$K_{\alpha \beta }=n_AD_\beta h_\alpha ^A=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\xi =_\alpha _\beta \varphi ^\xi ,$$
(8)
where $`D_\beta `$ denotes covariant derivatives in Gaussian coordinates (5) and $`\varphi ^\xi `$ is the transversal component of the embedding function.

Since bulk 5-dimensional space-time is pseudo-Euclidean, its scalar curvature is zero:

$$^5R=R+K^2K_{\alpha \beta }K^{\alpha \beta }=0.$$
(9)
From this relation the 4-dimensional scalar curvature $`R`$ can be expressed with the quadratic combinations of the extrinsic curvature $`K_{\alpha \beta }`$. Thus, using (8) Hilbert’s 4-dimensional gravitational action (after removing of boundary terms) can be written in the form:

$$S_g=M_{Pl}^2R\sqrt{g}d^4x=M_{Pl}^2\left(\mathrm{}\varphi ^\xi \mathrm{}\varphi ^\xi _\alpha _\beta \varphi ^\xi ^\alpha ^\beta \varphi ^\xi \right)\sqrt{g}d^4x,$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{}=_\alpha ^\alpha `$ is the 4-dimensional wave operator and $`g`$ is the determinant in Gaussian coordinates. It is clear now that embedding theory allows us to rewrite 4-dimensional gravitational action in terms of derivatives of the normal components of some multi-dimensional vector.

Now let us consider the bulk massless vector field $`A^B`$ that obeys 5-dimensional Maxwell’s equations

$$_AF^{AB}=0,$$
(11)
where $`F_{AB}=_AA_B_BA_A`$ is the ordinary field strength. We avoid connection of the functions $`A^B`$ with the bulk coordinates $`X^A`$, not to restrict ourselves with pure geometrical interpretation.

The action for Maxwell’s field can be written in the general form:

$$S_A=\frac{1}{4}F_{AB}F^{AB}d^5X=\frac{1}{2}[_AA_B(^AA^B+^BA^A)2_AA^A_BA^B]d^5X.$$
(12)
We shall demonstrate below that on the brane this action can be reduced to the 4-dimensional gravity action (10).

Note that so called vacuum gauge fields - the solutions of the equations

$$F_{AB}=0,$$
(13)
are always present in the space-time. These fields are solutions of Maxwell’s equations (11) as well. If there are no topological defects in space-time, the solutions of (13) are pure gauges. The example of non-trivial solution of (13) in space-time with the linear defect is Aharonov-Bohm field ( see e. g. ). For the brane the normal to its surface components of vacuum gauge fields also are non-trivial and we shall show that they can resemble gravity on the brane.

In the Gaussian coordinates (5) the ansatz which satisfies (13) and has the symmetries of the brane, with the accuracy of constants, can be written in the form:

$$A^\alpha =G(\xi )^\alpha \varphi (x^\beta ),A^\xi =\varphi (x^\beta )^\xi G(\xi ),$$
(14)
where $`G(\xi )`$ and $`\varphi (x^\beta )`$ are some functions depending on the fifth coordinate $`\xi `$, and four-coordinates $`x^\beta `$ respectively. We assume that $`G(\xi )`$ is an even function of $`\xi `$ and the integrals from $`G(\xi )`$ and from its derivative are convergent. Simple example of such a function is $`exp(\xi ^2)`$. So, we choose the ansatz:

$$A^\alpha =\frac{c}{ϵ^{3/2}}^\alpha \varphi ^\xi (x^\beta )exp\left(\frac{\xi ^2}{ϵ^2}\right),A^\xi =\frac{2c}{ϵ^{7/2}}\xi \varphi ^\xi (x^\beta )exp\left(\frac{\xi ^2}{ϵ^2}\right),$$
(15)
where $`ϵ`$ is the brane width and $`c`$ is some dimensionless constant. We assume that the width of the brane $`ϵ`$ is constant all along the surface.

Inserting the ansatz (15) into action integral (12), and integrating by the normal coordinate $`\xi `$ we receive the induced action on the brane:

$$S_A=\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\frac{c^2}{ϵ^2}\left(\mathrm{}\varphi ^\xi \mathrm{}\varphi ^\xi _\alpha _\beta \varphi ^\xi ^\alpha ^\beta \varphi ^\xi \right)\sqrt{g}d^4x,$$

where summing is made with the intrinsic metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }(x^\nu )`$. If we put

$$M_{Pl}^2=\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\frac{c^2}{ϵ^2},$$
(16)
the effective action of 5-dimensional vector field (Brane Gravity from Bulk Vector Field) becomes equivalent to Hilbert’s action for 4-dimensional gravity (10). So, 4-dimensional Einstein’s equations on the brane can be received from Maxwell’s multi-dimensional equations in flat space-time.

The same result can be obtained in the case $`N>5`$. Now $`\xi `$ and $`\varphi ^\xi `$ in (6), (8) and (15) must be replaced by $`\xi ^i`$ and $`\varphi ^i`$, and action integrals (10) and (Brane Gravity from Bulk Vector Field) transform to the sum:

$$S_\mathrm{\Sigma }=M_{Pl}^2\eta _{ij}\left(\mathrm{}\varphi ^i\mathrm{}\varphi ^j_\alpha _\beta \varphi ^i^\alpha ^\beta \varphi ^j\right)\sqrt{g}d^4x,$$
(17)
where $`\eta _{ij}`$ is the Minkowskian metric of the normal space to the brane. Small Latin indices $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$ enumerates extra $`(N4)`$ coordinates. If we assume that all the brane widths are equal to $`ϵ`$ for the scale in (17) we have:

$$M_{Pl}^2=\frac{c^2}{ϵ^2}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)^{(N4)/2}.$$
(18)
Now we want to consider the particular example 6-dimensional pseudo-Euclidean space with the signature $`(2+4)`$ to demonstrate 4-dimensional unification of gravity and Electro-Magnetism based on Maxwell’s equations. In (17) there exists only derivatives of $`\varphi ^i`$ (which we connected with gravity) and it is clear that $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ is zero. Now we want to insert in (15) also the non-integrable part $`a^\alpha (x^\beta )`$ and identify it with the 4-dimensional vector-potentials.

The (2+4)-space is interesting object for investigations. As it was found a long time ago, in this space Schwarzschild’s metric admits embedding , and that non-linear 15-parameter conformal group can be written as a linear Lorentz-type transformations . Another fact is that 5-dimensional metric with exponential warp factor (needed to cancel cosmological constant ) can be embedded in the Euclidean (2+4)-space . For compact Kaluza-Klein models the (2+4)-space was studied in  and in the context of brane models with non-factorizable geometry in .

Let us insert $`a^\alpha (x^\beta )`$ in (15) and rewrite it in the form:

$`A^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{c}{ϵ^2}}^\alpha \varphi ^\tau (x^\beta )exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^2}{ϵ^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{ϵ^2}}^\alpha \varphi ^\kappa (x^\beta )exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{ϵ^2}}\right)+a^\alpha exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^2+\kappa ^2}{ϵ^2}}\right),`$
$`A^\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{2c}{ϵ^4}}\tau \varphi ^\tau (x^\beta )exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^2}{ϵ^2}}\right),`$ (19)
$`A^\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{2c}{ϵ^4}}\kappa \varphi ^\kappa (x^\beta )exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{ϵ^2}}\right),`$
where $`\kappa `$ and $`\tau `$ are the normal to the brane space-like and time-like coordinates respectively.

Using the ansatz (Brane Gravity from Bulk Vector Field) Maxwell’s action in (2+4)-space takes the form:

$`S_A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle F_{AB}F^{AB}d^6X}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi c^2}{2ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle R\sqrt{g}d^4x}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle exp\left[\frac{2(\tau ^2+\kappa ^2)}{ϵ^2}\right]\left[f_{\alpha \beta }f^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{4}{ϵ^4}(\tau ^2\kappa ^2)a_\alpha a^\alpha \right]\sqrt{g}d^4x𝑑\tau 𝑑\kappa }=`$ (20)
$`={\displaystyle \left(M_{Pl}^2R+\frac{1}{4}f_{\alpha \beta }f^{\alpha \beta }\right)\sqrt{g}d^4x},`$
where $`f_{\alpha \beta }=_\alpha a_\beta _\beta a_\alpha `$. So, 6-dimensional Maxwell’s action on the brane is reduced to the 4-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell action. As in  the brane is placed at $`\tau ^2=\kappa ^2`$, that means that it moves with the speed of light in transversal (1+1)-space.

In Gaussian coordinates (5) Maxwell’s 6-dimensional equations, after inserting there the ansatz (Brane Gravity from Bulk Vector Field), reduces to the system:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}_\alpha (\sqrt{g}f^{\alpha \beta }){\displaystyle \frac{4}{ϵ^4}}(\tau ^2\kappa ^2)a^\beta =0,`$
$`_\alpha a^\alpha =0.`$ (21)
One can see that the situation is similar to superconductors. On the brane ($`\tau ^2=\kappa ^2`$) photon is massless and obtains the large mass $`1/ϵ`$ in the direction normal to the brane.

We want to note that even if we don’t want to connect $`\varphi ^i`$ with gravity, the ansatz (Brane Gravity from Bulk Vector Field) can be used for trapping photons on the brane in the (2+4)-space (for localization of massless vector fields on a brane, see ).

Hence, in this paper the equivalence of the descriptions of 4-dimensional gravity both with the intrinsic metric, and with the multi-dimensional vector field was demonstrated. We have not considered here models for the field that forms the brane, as well as the question how the brane geometry is changed because of couplings with 4-dimensional matter was not raised.

Acknowledgements: Author would like to acknowledge the hospitality extended during his visits at the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics where this work was done.