text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The traditional Dirac quantization method (DQM)  has been widely used in order to quantize Hamiltonian systems involving first- and second-class constraints. The resulting Dirac brackets defined on the subspace of the constraints may however be field-dependent and nonlocal, and could thus pose serious ordering problems for the quantization of the theory. On the other hand, the Becci-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST)  procedure of first turning the second-class constraints into first-class ones along the lines originally established by Batalin, Fradkin, and Vilkovisky , and then reformulated in a more tractable and elegant version by Batalin, Fradkin, and Tyutin (BFT) , does not suffer from these difficulties, as it relies on a simple Poisson bracket structure. As a result, the embedding of second-class systems into first-class ones (gauge theories) has received much attention in the past years and the DQM improved in this way, has been applied to a number of models  in order to obtain the corresponding Wess-Zumino (WZ) actions .

The traditional Dirac approach  has been criticized for introducing “superfluous” (primary) constraints. As a result an alternative approach based on the symplectic structure of phase space has been proposed in ref. . The advantage of such an approach in the case of first-order Lagrangians such as Chern-Simons theories has in particular been emphasized by Faddeev and Jackiw . This symplectic scheme has been worked out in considerable detail in a series of papers , and has been applied to a number of models . It has further been extended recently to implement the improved DQM embedding program in the context of the symplectic formalism .

In this paper, we wish to illustrate the above quantization schemes in the case of the self-dual master Lagrangian of Deser and Jackiw . The material is organized as follows. In section 2, we briefly discuss the self-dual master model within the framework of the standard and the improved DQMs. In section 3, we apply the gauge non-invariant symplectic formalism  to this model. In section 4, we then show how the improved DQM program for gauging all degrees of freedom in this master Lagrangian is realized in the framework of the symplectic formalism. We also briefly discuss the one-to-one correspondance with the traditional Dirac and improved Dirac approach in the respective cases. Our conclusion is given in section 5.

## 2 Dirac quantization method

Standard Dirac quantization method

In this section, we consider the massive self-dual model Lagrangian

$$_0=\frac{m}{2}f_\mu f^\mu \frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }f^\mu ^\nu A^\lambda \frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }A^\mu ^\nu f^\lambda +\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }A^\mu ^\nu A^\lambda .$$
(2.1)
The canonical momenta conjugate to the fields $`f^\mu `$ and $`A^\mu `$ are given by

$`\pi _0^f`$ $`=`$ $`0,\pi _i^f={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ij}A^j,`$
$`\pi _0^A`$ $`=`$ $`0,\pi _i^A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ij}f^j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ij}A^j`$ (2.2)
with the Poisson algebra $`\{f^\mu (x),\pi _\nu ^f(y)\}=\{A^\mu (x),\pi _\nu ^A(y)\}=\delta _\nu ^\mu \delta (xy)`$. The canonical Hamiltonian then reads

$$H_c=d^2x\left[\frac{m}{2}f_\mu f^\mu +ϵ_{ij}f^0^iA^j+ϵ_{ij}A^0(^if^j^iA^j)\right].$$
(2.3)
The primary constraints following from the definition of the canonical momenta, are

$`\varphi _0^f`$ $``$ $`\pi _0^f0,`$
$`\varphi _i^f`$ $``$ $`\pi _i^f+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ij}A^j0,`$
$`\varphi _0^A`$ $``$ $`\pi _0^A0,`$
$`\varphi _i^A`$ $``$ $`\pi _i^A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ij}f^j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ij}A^j0`$ (2.4)
with the corresponding primary Hamiltonian $`H_p`$

$$H_p=H_c+d^2x\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{2}{}}(v_f^\mu \varphi _\mu ^f+v_A^\mu \varphi _\mu ^A).$$
(2.5)
Persistence in time of the primary constraints leads to the secondary constraints

$`\phi ^f`$ $``$ $`mf^0ϵ_{ij}^iA^j0,`$
$`\phi ^A`$ $``$ $`ϵ_{ij}(^if^j^iA^j)0.`$ (2.6)
The constraints $`\varphi _i^f`$ and $`\varphi _i^A`$ fix the corresponding Lagrange multipliers to be $`v_f^i=^if^0+mϵ^{ij}f_j`$ and $`v_A^i=^iA^0+mϵ^{ij}f_j`$, respectively. The Lagrange multiplier $`v_f^0`$ is determined by the time evolution of the constraint $`\phi ^f`$ with the primary Hamiltonian to be $`v_f^0=_if^i`$, while the multiplier $`v_A^0`$ remains undetermined. The fact of having an undetermined Lagrange multiplier $`v_A^0`$ reflects the existence of a gauge symmetry related to the fields $`A^\mu `$. Indeed, with the redefinition  of the constraint $`\phi ^A\omega ^A=\phi ^A+^i\varphi _i^A`$, we see that $`\omega ^A`$ is first class and is the generator of the gauge transformation, $`A^iA^i+^i\lambda `$.

We could now follow the BFT procedure in order to turn all constraints into first-class ones. This is left for the appendix. Here we are primarily interested in establishing the connection between the BFT embedding and the symplectic embedding procedures . As it turns out (see section 3 and 4), this connection is given in the subspace where the constraints $`\varphi _i^f=0`$ and $`\varphi _i^A=0`$ are implemented strongly. In this subspace we are then left with two first-class constraints, $`\varphi _0^A0`$, $`\phi ^A0`$, and two second-class ones, $`\varphi _0^f0`$, $`\phi ^f0`$. We construct the corresponding Dirac brackets in terms of the inverse of the matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ defined in terms of the Poisson brackets of $`\{\varphi _i^f,\varphi _j^A\}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& ϵ\\ ϵ& ϵ\end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy),$$
(2.7)
where

$$ϵ=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(2.8)
For the corresponding non-vanishing Dirac brackets, computed in the standard way, we have:

$`\{A^0,\pi _0^A\}_D`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^2(xy),\{f^0,\pi _0^f\}_D=\delta ^2(xy),`$
$`\{f^i,f^j\}_D`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{ij}\delta ^2(xy),\{f^i,A^j\}_D=ϵ^{ij}\delta ^2(xy),`$
$`\{A^i,\pi _j^A\}_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _j^i\delta ^2(xy),\{f^i,\pi _j^f\}_D={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _j^i\delta ^2(xy),`$
$`\{f^i,\pi _j^A\}_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _j^i\delta ^2(xy),`$ (2.9)
where we have used the convention: $`ϵ_{12}=ϵ^{12}=1`$ and $`ϵ_{ik}ϵ^{kj}=\delta _i^j`$.

Improved Dirac Quantization Method

Following the Improved DQM , we now proceed to embed the model into a gauge theory with respect to the above Dirac brackets, by extending phase space to include a pair of (canonically conjugate) auxiliary fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$, satisfying the Poisson brackets

$$\{\mathrm{\Phi }^i(x),\mathrm{\Phi }^j(y)\}=ϵ^{ij}\delta ^2(xy).$$
(2.10)
Denote the second-class constraints $`(\varphi _0^f,\phi ^f)`$ by $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_i^f\},i=1,2`$. The first-class constraints $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i^f`$ are now constructed as a power series in the auxiliary fields, as follows:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i^f=\mathrm{\Omega }_i^f+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{(n)},$$
(2.11)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{(n)},(n=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ are homogeneous polynomials in the auxiliary fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ of degree $`n`$, to be determined by the requirement that the constraints $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i^f`$ be strongly involutive:

$$\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i^f(x),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j^f(y)\}_D=0.$$
(2.12)
Making the ansatz,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{(1)}(x)=d^2yX_{ij}(x,y)\mathrm{\Phi }^j(y)$$
(2.13)
and substituting this ansatz into (2.11), the requirement (2.12) leads to the simple solution $`X_{ij}(x,y)=\sqrt{m}\delta _{ij}\delta ^2(xy)`$. There are no higher order contributions to (2.11). We thus obtain for the first-class constraints

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0^f`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _0^f+m\theta ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\phi }^f`$ $`=`$ $`mf^0ϵ_{ij}^iA^j+\pi _\theta ,`$ (2.14)
satisfying the first-class algebra $`\{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0^f,\stackrel{~}{\phi }^f\}=0`$, where we have replaced ($`\mathrm{\Phi }^1,\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$) by ($`\sqrt{m}\theta `$, $`\pi _\theta /\sqrt{m})`$, for convenience.

Applying this procedure to the original field variables, we similarly obtain for the corresponding first-class fields

$`\stackrel{~}{f}^0`$ $`=`$ $`f^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\pi _\theta ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{f}^i`$ $`=`$ $`f^i+^i\theta ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_0^f`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _0^f+m\theta ,`$ (2.15)
satisfying $`\{F(\stackrel{~}{f}^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\pi }_0^f),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i^f\}=0`$.

Since an arbitrary functional of the first-class fields is also first-class, we can obtain the first-class Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}_c`$ by simply replacing the original fields by the respective tilde-fields :

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2x[{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}(f^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\pi _\theta )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}(f^i+^i\theta )^2`$ (2.16)
$`+ϵ_{ij}(f^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\pi _\theta )^iA^j+ϵ_{ij}A^0(^if^j^iA^j)]`$
along with the remaining first-class constraints now written in the extended phase space as

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0^A`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_0^A=\pi _0^A,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\phi }^A`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ij}^i\stackrel{~}{f}^j+ϵ_{ij}^i\stackrel{~}{A}^j=ϵ_{ij}^if^j+ϵ_{ij}^iA^j.`$ (2.17)
Note that we have taken here $`\stackrel{~}{A}^\mu =A^\mu `$. Indeed, $`A^\mu `$ and $`\pi _0^A`$ remain unchanged by the embedding procedure, which only involved the $`f^\mu `$-fields. $`A^\mu `$ thus continues to transform as usual under gauge transformations, and is not first class. One may thus question our simple substitution procedure for arriving at the first-class Hamiltonian. It is thus instructive to construct $`\stackrel{~}{H}_c`$ following the usual BFT construction in order to obtain the involutive Hamiltonian directly . The procedure assumes that the involutive Hamiltonian can be written as the infinite series

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=H_c+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}H^{(n)},H^{(n)}(\mathrm{\Phi }^i)^n,$$
(2.18)
satisfying the initial condition $`\stackrel{~}{H}(f^\mu ,A^\mu ,\pi _0^f,\pi _0^A;\mathrm{\Phi }^i=0)=H_c`$. The general solution  for the involutive Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is then given by

$$H^{(n)}=\frac{1}{n}d^2xd^2y\mathrm{\Phi }^i(x)ϵ_{ij}X^{jk}(x,y)G_k^{(n1)}(y),$$
(2.19)
where the generating functionals $`G^{(n)}`$ are:

$`G_i^{(0)}=\{\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{(0)},H_c\},`$
$`G_i^{(n)}=\{\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{(0)},H^{(n)}\}_𝒪+\{\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{(1)},H^{(n1)}\}_𝒪.`$ (2.20)
Here the symbol $`𝒪`$ denotes that the Poisson brackets are calculated among the original variables.

Explicit calculations for our model yield

$$G_1^{(0)}=mf^0ϵ_{ij}^iA^j,G_2^{(0)}=m_if^i,$$
(2.21)
which are substituted in (2.19) to obtain $`H^{(1)}`$:

$$H^{(1)}=d^2x\left[m\theta _if^i\frac{1}{m}\pi _\theta (mf^0ϵ_{ij}^iA^j)\right].$$
(2.22)
The generating functionals for the next generation are:

$`G_1^{(1)}=\pi _\theta ,G_2^{(1)}=m_i^i\theta ,`$ (2.23)
and yield

$$H^{(2)}=d^2x\left[\frac{1}{2m}\pi _\theta ^2\frac{m}{2}_i\theta ^i\theta \right].$$
(2.24)
There are no further iterative higher order Hamiltonians, and thus total Hamiltonian can be written as

$`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ $`=`$ $`H_c+H^{(1)}+H^{(2)}`$ (2.25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2x[{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}f_\mu f^\mu +f^0ϵ_{ij}^iA^j+A^0ϵ_{ij}(^if^j^iA^j)`$
$`+m\theta _if^if^0\pi _\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\pi _\theta ϵ_{ij}^iA^j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\pi _\theta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}_i\theta ^i\theta ],`$
which is the same as the first-class Hamiltonian (2.16) up to a total derivative. This confirms the equivalence of the $`\stackrel{~}{H}_c`$ (2.16) of the involutive Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ (2.25).

Now, let us streamline the notation by defining

$`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha ^f)`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0^f,\stackrel{~}{\phi }^f),`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha ^A)`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0^A,\stackrel{~}{\phi }^A).`$ (2.26)
With respect to the Dirac brackets defined previously we then have the relations of strong involution

$`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha ^f,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\beta ^A\}_D=0,`$
$`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha ^f,\stackrel{~}{H}_c\}_D=0,`$
$`\{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0^A,\stackrel{~}{H}_c\}_D=\stackrel{~}{\phi }^A,`$
$`\{\stackrel{~}{\phi }^A,\stackrel{~}{H}_c\}_D=0,`$ (2.27)
On the other hand, with the first-class Hamiltonian (2.16), one does not generate naturally the first-class Gauss law constraints from the time evolution of the primary constraints $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0^f0,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0^A0`$. For this to be the case we introduce an additional term proportional to the first class constraints $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0^f`$ into the Hamiltonian density $`\stackrel{~}{}_c`$, leading us to consider the equivalent first-class Hamiltonian

$$\stackrel{~}{}_c^{}=\stackrel{~}{}_c+\frac{1}{m}\pi _\theta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0^f.$$
(2.28)
We then obtain the Dirac brackets in the desired form:

$`\{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0^f(x),\stackrel{~}{H}_c^{}\}_D=\stackrel{~}{\phi }^f(x),\{\stackrel{~}{\phi }^f(x),\stackrel{~}{H}_c^{}\}=0,`$
$`\{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0^A(x),\stackrel{~}{H}_c^{}\}_D=\stackrel{~}{\phi }^A(x),\{\stackrel{~}{\phi }^A(x),\stackrel{~}{H}_c^{}\}=0.`$ (2.29)
We streamline further the notation by collecting all the first-class constraints into a single vector:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_A=(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha ^f,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha ^A).$$
(2.30)
Note here that the subscript $`A`$ is the index running 1 to 4, while the superscript $`A`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha ^A`$ denotes these constraints are related to the field $`A^\mu `$ in the model.

We now seek the equivalent Lagrangian corresponding to the first-class Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{}_c^{}`$ in (2.28). To this end we consider the partition function in the phase space as given by the Faddeev-Senjanovic prescription ,

$`Z=N{\displaystyle 𝒟f^\mu 𝒟A^\mu 𝒟\theta 𝒟\pi _\theta 𝒟\pi _0^f𝒟\pi _0^A\underset{A,B}{}\delta (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_A)\delta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_B)det|\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_A,\mathrm{\Gamma }_B\}|e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{d}^3x}}},`$
$`=\pi _0^f\dot{f}^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ij}A^j\dot{f}^i+\pi _0^A\dot{A}^0+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ij}f^j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ij}A^j)\dot{A}^i+\pi _\theta \dot{\theta }\stackrel{~}{}_c^{},`$
where the gauge fixing conditions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_B`$ are chosen so that the determinant occurring in the functional measure is nonvanishing.

Exponentiating the delta function $`\delta (\stackrel{~}{\phi }^f)`$ as $`\delta (\stackrel{~}{\phi }^f)=𝒟\xi e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{d}^3x\xi \stackrel{~}{\phi }_f}}`$, making a transformation $`f^0f^0+\xi `$ and performing the integration over $`\pi _0^f`$, $`\pi _\theta `$, $`\pi _0^A`$ and $`\xi `$, the partition function (2) reduces to

$$Z=N𝒟f^\mu 𝒟A^\mu 𝒟\theta \underset{A,B}{}\delta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_B)det|\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_A,\mathrm{\Gamma }_B\}|e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{d}^3}},$$
(2.32)
where

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}(f_\mu +_\mu \theta )(f^\mu +^\mu \theta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }(f^\mu +^\mu \theta )^\nu A^\lambda `$ (2.33)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }A^\mu ^\nu (f^\lambda +^\lambda \theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }A^\mu ^\nu A^\lambda `$
is the manifestly gauge invariant Stückelberg Lagrangian with the Stückelberg scalar $`\theta `$.

Next, following Dirac’s conjecture , we construct the generator $`G`$ of gauge transformations for the embedded self-dual master model in the standard way,

$$G=\mathrm{d}^3x\underset{\alpha }{}\left[ϵ_\alpha ^f\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha ^f+ϵ_\alpha ^A\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha ^A\right],$$
(2.34)
where $`ϵ_\alpha ^f,ϵ_\alpha ^A`$ are in general functions of phase space variables and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha ^f,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha ^A`$ are the first-class constraints in Eq. (2.30). The infinitesimal gauge transformation for a function $`F`$ of phase space variables is then given by the relation of $`\delta F=\{F,G\}_D`$, and leads to

$`\delta f^0`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_1^f,\delta f^i=^iϵ_2^f,`$
$`\delta A^0`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_1^A,\delta A^i=^iϵ_2^A,`$
$`\delta \theta `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_2^f.`$ (2.35)
The above gauge transformation involving four gauge parameters is a symmetry of the Hamiltonian, but not of the Lagrangian. The generator $`G`$ of the most general local symmetry transformation of a Lagrangian must satisfy the master equation

$$\frac{G}{t}+\{G,H_T\}=0,$$
(2.36)
which, together with (2.34), implies the following well-known restrictions on the gauge parameters, and on the Lagrange multipliers in the primary Hamiltonian:

$`\delta v^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ^\beta }{dt}}ϵ^A(V_A^\beta +v^\alpha C_{\alpha A}^\beta ),`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ^b}{dt}}ϵ^A(V_A^b+v^\alpha C_{\alpha A}^b).`$ (2.37)
Here the superscript $`\alpha ,\beta `$ ($`a,b`$) denote the primary (secondary) constraints, and $`V_B^A`$, $`C_{BC}^A`$ are the structure functions of the constrained Hamiltonian dynamics defined by $`\{H_c,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_A\}_D=V_A^B\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_B`$, $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_A,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_B\}_D=C_{AB}^C\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_C`$, respectively. From (2) we obtain $`ϵ_1^f=dϵ_2^f/dt`$, and $`ϵ_1^A=dϵ_2^A/dt`$. Thus the gauge transformations (2.35) reduce

$$\delta f^\mu =^\mu ϵ_2^f,\delta A^\mu =^\mu ϵ_2^A,\delta \theta =ϵ_2^f,$$
(2.38)
which evidently leaves the Stückelberg Lagrangian (2.33) invariant.

## 3 Constraint structure of master Lagrangian in symplectic approach

In this and the following sections we show that the results obtained in section 2 are in full agreement with those obtained in the symplectic approach. We begin by considering the symplectic analogue of the conventional Dirac approach.

The Master Lagrangian (2.1) is of the form

$$L=d^2xa(x)_\alpha \dot{\xi }_\alpha (x)V[\xi ],$$
(3.1)
where

$$(\xi _\alpha )=(f^1,f^2,A^1,A^2,f^0,A^0),$$
(3.2)
$$(a_\alpha )=(\frac{1}{2}A^2,\frac{1}{2}A^1,\frac{1}{2}(f^2A^2),\frac{1}{2}(f^1A^1),0,0),$$
(3.3)
and

$$V=d^2x\left[\frac{m}{2}f_\mu f^\mu +f^0ϵ_{ij}^iA^j+A^0(ϵ_{ij}^if^jϵ_{ij}^iA^j)\right].$$
(3.4)
The Euler-Lagrange equations then read

$$d^2yF_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)}(x,y)\dot{\xi }_\beta (y)=K_\alpha ^{(0)}(x),$$
(3.5)
where

$$(K_\alpha ^{(0)})=\frac{\delta V}{\delta \xi _\alpha (x)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}^2A^0+mf^1\\ ^1A^0+mf^2\\ _2(f^0A^0)\\ _1(f^0A^0)\\ ϵ_{ij}^iA^jmf^0\\ ϵ_{ij}^i(f^jA^j)\end{array}\right),$$
(3.6)
and $`F_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)}`$ is the (pre)symplectic form

$$F_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)}(x,y)=\frac{a_\beta (y)}{\xi _\alpha (x)}\frac{a_\alpha (x)}{\xi _\beta (y)}.$$
(3.7)
Explicitly

$$F^{(0)}(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& ϵ& 0\\ ϵ& ϵ& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy),$$
(3.8)
where $`ϵ`$ is the matrix (2.8), and $`0`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ matrix. It is evident that since $`detF^{(0)}=0`$, the matrix $`F^{(0)}`$ is not invertible. In fact, the rank of this matrix is four, so that there exist two-fold infinity of zero-generation (left) zero modes $`u^{(0)}(\sigma ;z)`$, labelled by discrete indices $`\sigma =1,2`$ and the continuum label $`z`$, with components:

$`u_x^{(0)T}(1;z)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,0,1,0)\delta ^2(xz),`$
$`u_x^{(0)T}(2;z)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,0,0,1)\delta ^2(xz),`$ (3.9)
where the superscript “T” stands for “transpose”. Correspondingly we have a two-fold infinity of “zero generation” constraints

$$\phi _\sigma (z)=d^2x\underset{\alpha }{}u_{\alpha ,x}^{(0)}(\sigma ,z)\frac{\delta V}{\delta \xi _\alpha (x)}=0.$$
(3.10)
Explicitly

$`\phi _1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V}{\delta f^0(z)}}=mf^0(z)ϵ_{ij}^iA^j(z),`$
$`\phi _2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V}{\delta A^0(z)}}=ϵ_{ij}^i(f^j(z)A^j(z)).`$ (3.11)
Comparing with (2) we see that $`\phi _1=\phi ^f`$ and $`\phi _2=\phi ^A`$. We must require these constraints to be conserved in time:

$$_0\phi _\sigma (z)=0,$$
(3.12)
or

$$d^2x\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{\phi _\sigma (z)}{\xi _\alpha (x)}\dot{\xi }_\alpha (x)=0.$$
(3.13)
These equations of motion are obtained as one of the Euler-Lagrange equations of the extended Lagrangian<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The minus sign is chosen for later convenience, when comparing with the Dirac quantization procedure.

$$L^{}=Ld^2x\underset{\sigma }{}\phi _\sigma (z)\dot{\eta }_\sigma (z).$$
(3.14)
The field $`A^0`$ only occurs in the potential $`V`$ in the form $`A^0(z)\phi _2(z)`$. Hence it can be absorbed into a new dynamical variable via the shift $`\dot{\eta }_2A^0\dot{\eta }_2`$. Our new set of “first-generation” dynamical variables are then

$$(\xi _{\alpha _1}^{(1)})=(f^1,f^2,A^1,A^2,f^0,\eta _1,\eta _2),$$
(3.15)
and the “first-generation” Lagrangian takes the form

$$L^{(1)}=d^2x\underset{\alpha _1=1}{\overset{7}{}}a_{\alpha _1}^{(1)}\dot{\xi }_{\alpha _1}^{(1)}V^{(1)}[\xi ],$$
(3.16)
where

$$\left(a_{\alpha _1}^{(1)}(x)\right)=(\frac{1}{2}A^2,\frac{1}{2}A^1,\frac{1}{2}(f^2A^2),\frac{1}{2}(f^1A^1),0,\phi _1(x),\phi _2(x)),$$
(3.17)
and

$$V^{(1)}=d^2x\left[\frac{m}{2}f_\mu f^\mu +f^0ϵ_{ij}^iA^j\right].$$
(3.18)
The equations of motion now take the form

$$d^2yF_{\alpha _1,\beta _1}^{(1)}(x,y)\dot{\xi }_{\beta _1}^{(1)}(y)=\frac{\delta V^{(1)}}{\delta \xi _{\alpha _1}^{(1)}(x)},$$
(3.19)
where the “first-generation” symplectic form $`F_{\alpha _1,\beta _1}^{(1)}`$ is given by

$$F_{\alpha _1\beta _1}^{(1)}(x,y)=\frac{a_{\beta _1}^{(1)}(y)}{\xi _{\alpha _1}^{(1)}(x)}\frac{a_{\alpha _1}^{(1)}(x)}{\xi _{\beta _1}^{(1)}(y)},$$
(3.20)
or explicitly

$$F^{(1)}(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& _2\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& _1\\ 0& 1& 0& 1& & _2& _2\\ 1& 0& 1& 0& 0& _1& _1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& m& 0\\ 0& 0& _2& _1& m& 0& 0\\ _2& _1& _2& _1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy).$$
(3.21)
$`F^{(1)}`$ exhibits one zero mode

$$u_x^{(1)T}(z)=(0,0,_1,_2,0,0,1)\delta ^2(xz).$$
(3.22)
Noting that

$$(K_\alpha ^{(1)})=\frac{\delta V^{(1)}}{\delta \xi _\alpha }=\left(\begin{array}{c}mf^1\\ mf^2\\ _2f^0\\ _1f^0\\ ϵ_{ij}^iA^jmf^0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),$$
(3.23)
we find that the new constraint vanishes identically:

$$d^2zu_{\alpha _1,x}^{(1)}(z)\frac{\delta V^{(1)}}{\delta \xi ^{(1)}(z)}=(_1_2f^0_1_2f^0)0.$$
(3.24)
Hence the algorithm ends at this point. We now write $`F^{(1)}`$ in the form

$$F^{(1)}(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}f& M\\ M^T& 0\end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy),$$
(3.25)
where

$$f(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& _2\\ 1& 0& 1& 0& 0& _1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& m\\ 0& 0& _2& _1& m& 0\end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy),$$
(3.26)
and $`M`$ the $`1\times 6`$ matrix

$$M_{\alpha _1}(x,y)=\left(\frac{\phi _2(y)}{\xi _{\alpha _1}^{(1)}(x)}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_2& \\ _1& \\ _2& \\ _1& \\ 0& \\ 0& \end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy).$$
(3.27)
We next observe that $`detf0`$, so that the inverse of $`f`$ above exists. It is readily computed to be

$$f^1(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 1& 0& 1& \frac{1}{m}_1& 0\\ 1& 0& 1& 0& \frac{1}{m}_2& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{m}_1& \frac{1}{m}_2& 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{m}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{m}& 0\end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy).$$
(3.28)
The zero mode (3.22) is of the general form

$$u_{\alpha _1,x}^{(1)}(z)=(\underset{B=1}{\overset{6}{}}d^2yf_{AB}^1(x,y)\frac{\phi _2(z)}{\xi _B^{(1)}(y)},1),A,B=1,\mathrm{},6,$$
(3.29)
where we label the subspace on which $`f^1`$ is defined by the indices $`A,B,C,\mathrm{}`$. As we shall see, in the algorithm of Dirac these label the complete set of second-class constraints. The zero mode (3.22) is the generator of gauge transformations in the sense

$$\delta \xi _{\alpha _1}^{(1)}(x)=d^2zu_{\alpha _1,x}^{(1)}(z)ϵ(z).$$
(3.30)
With the aid of (3.29) we can readily rewrite this in terms of symplectic brackets. Let $`F`$ and $`G`$ be functions of the dynamical field variables $`\xi _A`$. We define generalized symplectic structures by

$$\{F,G\}^{}=d^2zd^2z^{}\frac{F}{\xi _A(z)}f_{AB}^1(z,z^{})\frac{\delta G}{\delta \xi _B(z^{})}.$$
(3.31)
In particular

$$\{\xi _A(x),\xi _B(y)\}^{}=f_{AB}^1(x,y),$$
(3.32)
or explicitly

$`\{f^i(x),f^j(y)\}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{ij}\delta ^2(xy),`$
$`\{f^i(x),A^j(y)\}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{ij}\delta ^2(xy),`$
in agreement with the Dirac brackets in Eq.(2).

In terms of the symplectic structure (3.31) we may write (3.30) in a form which will be convenient for later comparison:

$`(\delta \xi _{\alpha _1}^{(1)}(x))`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle d^2yd^2zf_{AB}^1(x,y)\frac{\phi _2(z)}{\xi _B^{(1)}(y)}ϵ(z)},ϵ(x))`$ (3.33)
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle d^2z\{\xi _A^{(1)}(x),\phi _2(z)\}^{}ϵ(z)},ϵ(x)).`$
Explicitly

$`\delta A^1`$ $`=`$ $`^1ϵ,\delta A^2=^2ϵ,`$
$`\delta f^0`$ $`=`$ $`0,\delta f^1=0,\delta f^2=0,`$
$`\delta \eta _1`$ $`=`$ $`0,\delta \eta _2=ϵ.`$ (3.34)
Recalling the redefinition $`\dot{\eta }_2A^0\dot{\eta }_2`$, we see that $`\delta \eta _2=ϵ`$ implies $`\delta A^0=^0ϵ`$, in agreement with our expectations.

Hamiltonian description

It is instructive to compare the above results with the Hamiltonian description. Our starting point is again the first-order Lagrangian (3.1). The canonical momenta conjugate to $`\xi _\alpha `$ are given by

$$𝒫_\alpha =a_\alpha ,$$

and correspondingly we have six primary constraints, which we write in the canonical form

$$\varphi _\alpha 𝒫_\alpha a_\alpha 0.$$
(3.35)
The corresponding primary Hamiltonian governing the time development of the system  is thus given by

$`H_p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle d^2x𝒫_\alpha \dot{\xi }_\alpha (x)}L+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle d^2xv_\alpha \varphi _\alpha }`$ (3.36)
$`=`$ $`V[\xi ]+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle d^2xv_\alpha \varphi _\alpha },`$
where $`v_\alpha `$ are Lagrange multipliers (after suitable redefinition), and $`V[\xi ]`$ is the potential (3.4).

With the above “canonical” form for the primary constraints we have for the corresponding Poisson brackets

$$\{\varphi _\alpha (x),\varphi _\beta (y)\}=\frac{a_\beta (y)}{\xi _\alpha (x)}\frac{a_\alpha (x)}{\xi _\beta (y)}F_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)}(x,y).$$
(3.37)
As we have seen, this matrix is not invertible, and possesses in fact “two” zero modes<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2In order to simplify the language, we do not say “two-fold infinity” of zero modes.. They are obtained as usual by requiring the persistence in time of the primary constraints, and are found to be just $`\phi _1(z)`$ and $`\phi _2(z)`$, defined in Eq. (3.11). They represent the first generation of secondary constraints. There are no further (higher generation) constraints, and the algorithm ends at this point. We now collect all the constraints into a single “vector”

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_A)=(\{\varphi _\alpha \},\phi _1,\phi _2).$$
(3.38)
We correspondingly write for the second-class constraints

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\overline{A}}^{(2)})=(\{\varphi _\alpha \},\phi _1).$$
(3.39)
The range of values that $`\overline{A}`$ takes is implicit in the notation. It is readily recognized that, because of the “canonical” form of the primary constraints,

$$\{\mathrm{\Omega }_A(x),\mathrm{\Omega }_B(y)\}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}f(x,y)& (\frac{\phi _2(y)}{\xi _{\overline{A}}(x)})\\ (\frac{\phi _2(y)}{\xi _{\overline{B}}(x)})& 0\end{array}\right)=F^{(1)}(x,y)$$

with

$$f_{\overline{A}\overline{B}}(x,y)=\{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\overline{A}}^{(2)}(x),\mathrm{\Omega }_{\overline{B}}^{(2)}(y)\},$$

the elements of the matrix (3.26). Since the submatrix $`f`$, being constructed from the second-class constraints, is invertible, we may define the “Dirac brackets” in the conventional way, as

$`\{F,G\}_𝒟`$ $`=`$ $`\{F,G\}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{A},\overline{B}=1}{\overset{6}{}}}{\displaystyle d^2z^{}d^2z\{F,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\overline{A}}^{(2)}(z)\}f_{\overline{A}\overline{B}}^1(z,z^{})\{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\overline{B}}^{(2)}(z^{}),G\}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2zd^2z^{}\frac{\delta F}{\xi _{\overline{A}}(z)}f_{\overline{A}\overline{B}}^1(z,z^{})\frac{\delta G}{\xi _{\overline{B}}(z^{})}}.`$
Hence the Dirac brackets coincide with the generalized Poisson brackets (3.31). In particular choosing for $`F`$ the coordinates $`\xi _{\alpha _1}^{(1)}`$, and for $`G`$ the generator of the gauge transformation on Hamiltonian level,

$$G=d^2y\left[\pi _0^A(y)ϵ_1(y)+\phi _2(y)ϵ_2(y)\right],$$

we recover the gauge transformation (3.34) upon using the Lagrangian restriction on the gauge parameters commented on before.

## 4  Symplectic embedding of master Lagrangian

It is interesting to examine the relation between the BFT embedding procedure (improved Dirac approach) discussed in section 2, and a corresponding embedding in the symplectic formulation. The procedure of section 2 has led to a Stückelberg Lagrangian, where the field $`f^\mu `$ has been gauged by the introduction of a Stückelberg scalar $`\theta `$. This suggests the introduction of an additive “Wess-Zumino” term to the Lagrangian density (3.1) of the Lorentz covariant form

$$_{WZ}=\alpha f^\mu _\mu \theta +\frac{\beta }{2}_\mu \theta ^\mu \theta .$$

Following a standard recipe  for constructing the corresponding first order Lagrangian, one readily checks that the corresponding equivalent symplectic Lagrangian now reads as in (3.1), with

$$(\xi _\alpha )=(f^1,f^2,A^1,A^2,\theta ,\pi _\theta ,f^0,A^0),$$
(4.1)
$$(a_\alpha )=(\frac{1}{2}A^2,\frac{1}{2}A^1,\frac{1}{2}(f^2A^2),\frac{1}{2}(f^1A^1),\pi _\theta ,0,0,0),$$
(4.2)
and

$`V[A,f,\theta ,\pi _\theta ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2x[{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}f_\mu f^\mu +f^0ϵ_{ij}^iA^j+A^0(ϵ_{ij}^if^jϵ_{ij}^iA^j)`$ (4.3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta }}(\pi _\theta \alpha f^0)^2\alpha f^i_i\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}^i\theta _i\theta ].`$
The Euler-Lagrange equations then read as in (3.5), with $`K^{(0)}`$ replaced by

$$(K_\alpha ^{(0)})=\frac{\delta V}{\delta \xi _\alpha (x)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}^2A^0+mf^1+\alpha ^1\theta \\ ^1A^0+mf^2+\alpha ^2\theta \\ _2(f^0A^0)\\ _1(f^0A^0)\\ \alpha _if^i+\beta _i^i\theta \\ \frac{1}{\beta }(\pi \alpha f^0)\\ ϵ_{ij}^iA^j\frac{\alpha }{\beta }(\pi \alpha f^0)mf^0\\ ϵ_{ij}^i(f^jA^j)\end{array}\right),$$
(4.4)
and $`F_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)}`$ the (pre)symplectic form now replaced by

$$F^{(0)}(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& ϵ& 0& 0\\ ϵ& ϵ& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& ϵ& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy).$$
(4.5)
As is again evident, since $`detF^{(0)}=0`$, the matrix $`F^{(0)}`$ is not invertible. In fact, the rank of this matrix is $`6`$, so that there exist two-fold infinity of zero-generation (left) zero modes $`u^{(0)}(\sigma ,z)`$, labelled by discrete indices $`\sigma =1,2`$ and the continuum label $`z`$, with components:

$`u_x^{(0)T}(1;z)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0)\delta ^2(xz),`$
$`u_x^{(0)T}(2;z)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1)\delta ^2(xz),`$ (4.6)
implying the constraints

$`\phi _1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V}{\delta f^0(z)}}=mf^0(z)ϵ_{ij}^iA^j(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}(\pi _\theta (z)\alpha f^0(z)),`$
$`\phi _2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V}{\delta A^0(z)}}=ϵ_{ij}^i(f^j(z)A^j(z)).`$ (4.7)
We proceed as in section 3, being led to a first-level Lagrangian

$$L^{(1)}=d^2x\underset{\alpha _1=1}{\overset{9}{}}a_{\alpha _1}^{(1)}\dot{\xi }_{\alpha _1}^{(1)}V^{(1)}[\xi ]$$
(4.8)
with a new set of “first-generation” dynamical variables in which $`A^0`$ has again been absorbed into a redefinition of $`\eta _2`$,

$$(\xi _{\alpha _1}^{(1)})=(f^1,f^2,A^1,A^2,\theta ,\pi _\theta ,f^0,\eta _1,\eta _2),$$
(4.9)
and

$$\left(a_{\alpha _1}^{(1)}(x)\right)=(\frac{1}{2}A^2,\frac{1}{2}A^1,\frac{1}{2}(f^2A^2),\frac{1}{2}(f^1A^1),\pi _\theta ,0,0,\phi _1(x),\phi _2(x)),$$
(4.10)
and

$`V^{(1)}[A,f,\theta ,\pi _\theta ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2x[{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}f_\mu f^\mu +f^0ϵ_{ij}^iA^j`$ (4.11)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta }}(\pi _\theta \alpha f^0)^2\alpha f^i_i\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}^i\theta _i\theta ].`$
The equations of motion now take the form (3.19), where the “first-generation” symplectic form $`F_{\alpha _1,\beta _1}^{(1)}`$ is now given by (3.20), with

$$F^{(1)}(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& _2\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& _1\\ 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& _2& _2\\ 1& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& _1& _1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& \frac{\alpha }{\beta }& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \kappa & 0\\ 0& 0& _2& _1& 0& \frac{\alpha }{\beta }& \kappa & 0& 0\\ _2& _1& _2& _1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy),$$

where $`\kappa =m\alpha ^2/\beta `$, and $`K^{(1)}`$ is given by

$$(K_\alpha ^{(1)})=\frac{\delta V^{(1)}}{\delta \xi _\alpha }=\left(\begin{array}{c}mf^1+\alpha ^1\theta \\ mf^2+\alpha ^2\theta \\ _2f^0\\ _1f^0\\ \alpha _if^i+\beta _i^i\theta \\ \frac{1}{\beta }(\pi _\theta \alpha f^0)\\ ϵ_{ij}^iA^j\frac{\alpha }{\beta }(\pi _\theta \alpha f^0)mf^0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right).$$
(4.12)
$`F^{(1)}`$ exhibits one zero mode

$$u_x^{(1)T}(1;z)=(0,0,_1,_2,0,0,0,0,1)\delta ^2(xz),$$
(4.13)
implying however an identically vanishing constraint. For $`\frac{\alpha ^2}{\beta }=m`$ there are two further zero modes:

$`u_x^{(1)T}(2;z)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0)\delta ^2(xz),`$ (4.14)
$`u_x^{(1)T}(3;z)`$ $`=`$ $`(_1,_2,0,0,{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }},0,0,1,0)\delta ^2(xz).`$ (4.15)
The zero modes $`u_x^{(1)T}(2;z)`$ and $`u_x^{(2)T}(3;z)`$ both imply the constraint $`\phi _1=0`$ in (4.7), now evaluated for $`\kappa =m\frac{\alpha ^2}{\beta }=0`$:

$$\phi _1ϵ_{ij}^iA^j\frac{\alpha }{\beta }\pi _\theta .$$
(4.16)
The corresponding potential (4.11) now takes the form

$$V^{(1)}[A,f,\theta ,\pi _\theta ]=d^2x\left[\frac{m}{2}f_if^i+\frac{1}{2\beta }\pi _\theta ^2\alpha f^i_i\theta \frac{\beta }{2}^i\theta _i\theta f^0\phi _1\right].$$
(4.17)
We may thus absorb the term $`f^0\phi _1`$ in the potential into a redefinition of the variable $`\eta _1`$: $`\dot{\eta }_1f^0\dot{\eta }_1`$. Correspondingly

$$(\xi _{\alpha _1}^{(1)})=(f^1,f^2,A^1,A^2,\theta ,\pi _\theta ,\eta _1,\eta _2),$$
(4.18)
and $`K^{(1)}`$ is given by

$$(K_{\alpha _1}^{(1)})=\frac{\delta V^{(1)}}{\delta \xi _{\alpha _1}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}mf^1+\alpha ^1\theta \\ mf^2+\alpha ^2\theta \\ _2f^0\\ _1f^0\\ \alpha _if^i+\beta _i^i\theta \\ \frac{1}{\beta }(\pi _\theta \alpha f^0)\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),$$
(4.19)
$$F^{(1)}(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}f& M\\ M^T& 0\end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy),$$
(4.20)
where

$$f(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& ϵ& 0\\ ϵ& ϵ& 0\\ 0& 0& ϵ\end{array}\right),$$

and $`M`$ is the $`2\times 6`$ matrix

$$M_{\alpha _1}(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& _2\\ 0& _1\\ _2& _2\\ _1& _1\\ 0& 0\\ \frac{\alpha }{\beta }& 0\end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy).$$

In the form (4.20), $`F^{(1)}`$ still has two zero modes:

$`u_x^f(z)`$ $`=`$ $`(_1,_2,0,0,{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }},0,1,0)\delta ^2(xz),`$
$`u_x^A(z)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,_1,_2,0,0,0,1)\delta ^2(xz).`$ (4.21)
One readily checks that they imply identically vanishing constraints:

$$u^f(z)K^{(1)}0,u^A(z)K^{(1)}0.$$

They therefore generate the following gauge transformation:

$$\delta \xi _{\alpha _1}(x)=d^2z\left[u_{\alpha _1,x}^f(z)ϵ^f(z)+u_{\alpha _1,x}^A(z)ϵ^A(z)\right],$$
(4.22)
or explicitly

$`\delta A^1`$ $`=`$ $`^1ϵ^A,\delta A^2=^2ϵ^A,`$
$`\delta f^1`$ $`=`$ $`^1ϵ^f,\delta f^2=^2ϵ^f,`$
$`\delta \theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}ϵ^f,\delta \pi _\theta =0,`$
$`\delta \eta _1`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^f,\delta \eta _2=ϵ^A.`$ (4.23)
Recalling the relabelling $`\dot{\eta }_1f^0\dot{\eta }_1`$ and $`\dot{\eta }_2A^0\dot{\eta }_2`$, we see that the transformations for $`\eta _i`$ imply

$$\delta f^0=^0ϵ^f,\delta A^0=^0ϵ^A$$

in accordance with our expectations: $`\delta f^\mu =^\mu ϵ^f`$, $`\delta A^\mu =^\mu ϵ^A`$, and $`\delta \theta =ϵ^f`$ which are exactly the same as the transformation (2.38) obtained from the improved DQM when we assign the coefficients for $`\alpha =\beta =m`$.

Hamiltonian point of view

¿From the Hamiltonian point of view, the symplectic Lagrangian (3.1) implies again the primary constraints (3.35) with (4.1) – (4.11), as well as two additional primary constraints

$$\varphi ^\theta 𝒫_\theta \pi _\theta 0,$$

and

$$\varphi ^{\pi _\theta }𝒫_{\pi _\theta }0,$$

where $`𝒫^\theta ,𝒫^{\pi _\theta }`$ are the momenta conjugate to $`\theta `$ and $`\pi _\theta `$, respectively. The canonical Hamiltonian has the characteristic feature of being just given by the symplectic potential. Hence we have for the primary Hamiltonian

$$H_p=V[A,f,\pi _\theta ,\theta ]+d^2z\underset{\sigma }{}v_\alpha \varphi _\alpha .$$

The constraints $`\varphi _i^A0,\varphi _i^f0,\varphi ^\theta 0,\varphi ^\pi 0`$ fix the Lagrange multipliers $`v_A^i=0,v_f^i=0,v_\theta =0,v_\pi =0`$:

$`v_i^f`$ $`=`$ $`mϵ_{ij}f^j_if^0\alpha ϵ_{ij}^j\theta ,`$
$`v_i^A`$ $`=`$ $`mϵ_{ij}f^j_iA^0\alpha ϵ_{ij}^j\theta ,`$
$`v^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}(\pi \alpha f^0),`$
$`v^\pi `$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _if^i\beta _i^i\theta .`$ (4.24)
We recognize that the elements of $`F^{(0)}`$ are just the Poisson brackets of the primary constraints: $`F_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)}=\{\varphi _\alpha ,\varphi _\beta \}`$. The usual Dirac algorithm leads to the secondary constraints $`\phi _a0,a=1,2`$, which for $`\alpha ^2/\beta =m`$ are both found to have identically vanishing Poisson brackets with the primary Hamiltonian, after making use of the explicit expressions for the fixed Lagrange parameters. Hence no new constraints are generated, and we have in the final stage two first-class primary, and two first-class secondary constraints, generating in the usual manner the extended gauge symmetry of the Hamiltonian. It is interesting that in the symplectic approach we directly obtain the more restricted symmetry of the Lagrangian.

## 5 Conclusion

It has been the primary objective of this paper to illustrate in terms of a non-trivial model as described by the master Lagrangian of Deser and Jackiw , how the embedding of Hamiltonian systems with first and second-class constraints into an extended gauge theory is realized in the context of the “improved” Dirac quantization (BFT) approach on the one hand, and the “improved” symplectic approach, on the other. Rather than proceeding iteratively as one does in the improved DQM approach, we have simplified the calculation in the symplectic case by making use of manifest Lorentz invariance in our ansatz for the Wess-Zumino (WZ) term to be added to the master Lagrangian, and then reformulating the problem in terms of an equivalent first order Lagrangian. We have further established a one-to-one correspondence between the symplectic and the Dirac approach. Just as in the case of the improved DQM procedure, the symplectic embedding procedure requires the introduction of an even number of additional fields, which, following the Faddeev-Jackiw prescription  can be chosen to be canonically conjugate pairs. This is in line with the fact that the number of second-class constraints is always even, and that the BFT embedding procedure requires that phase space be augmented by one degree of freedom for each secondary constraint. This fact has not been recognized in a recent paper on the subject , where in our notation, $`\pi _\theta `$ has effectively been taken to be a function of $`A^i`$, $`\pi _i`$ and $`\theta `$.

One of us (KDR) would like to thank the Sogang High Energy Physics Group for their warm hospitality. Two of us (STH and YJP) acknowledge financial support from the Korea Research Foundation, Grant No. KRF-2001-DP0083.

Appendix: Improved Dirac Quantization Method

In this appendix we demonstrate how the improved DQM can be used in order to turn the model defined by the Master Lagrangian into a fully first-class system on the Hamiltonian level. In order to extract the true second-class constraints, we redefine the secondary constraint $`\phi ^A`$ as follows:

$$\omega ^A=^i\pi _i^A\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ij}^if^j+\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ij}^iA^j.$$
(A.1)
The nonvanishing Poisson brackets are then given as

$`\{\varphi _0^f(x),\phi ^f(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`m\delta ^2(xy),`$
$`\{\varphi _i^f(x),\varphi _j^A(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ij}\delta ^2(xy),`$
$`\{\varphi _i^A(x),\varphi _j^A(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ij}\delta ^2(xy),`$ (A.2)
which show that $`\varphi _0^A`$ and $`\omega ^A`$ are first-class.

Redefining the constraints:

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_3,\mathrm{\Omega }_4,\mathrm{\Omega }_5,\mathrm{\Omega }_6)=(\varphi _0^f,\phi ^f,\varphi _1^f,\varphi _2^f,\varphi _1^A,\varphi _2^A),$$
(A.3)
we obtain the second-class algebra

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }=\{\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta \}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}mϵ& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& ϵ\\ 0& ϵ& ϵ\end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy),$$
(A.4)
where $`ϵ`$ is the Levi-Civita tensor with $`ϵ_{12}=1`$ and $`0`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ null matrix.

The consistent quantization of the self-dual model is then obtained in terms of the following nonvanishing Dirac brackets

$$\begin{array}{cc}\{f^0(x),f^i(y)\}_D=\frac{1}{m}_i^x\delta ^2(xy),\hfill & \{f^i(x),f^j(y)\}_D=ϵ^{ij}\delta ^2(xy),\hfill \\ \{f^i(x),A^j(y)\}_D=ϵ^{ij}\delta ^2(xy),\hfill & \{A^i(x),\pi _j^A(y)\}_D=\frac{1}{2}\delta _j^i\delta ^2(xy),\hfill \\ \{\pi _i^A(x),\pi _j^A(y)\}_D=\frac{1}{4}ϵ_{ij}\delta ^2(xy),\hfill & \{\pi _i^f(x),\pi _j^A(y)\}_D=\frac{1}{4}ϵ_{ij}\delta ^2(xy),\hfill \\ \{f^i(x),\pi _j^f(y)\}_D=\frac{1}{2}\delta _j^i\delta ^2(xy),\hfill & \{f^0(x),\pi _i^A(y)\}_D=\frac{1}{2m}ϵ_{ij}_x^j\delta ^2(xy),\hfill \\ \{A^0(x),\pi _0^A(y)\}_D=\delta ^2(xy).\hfill & \end{array}$$
(A.5)
Now, let us extend phase space further to embed all the second-class constraints into the corresponding first-class ones, while in section 2 partially embed them by eliminating the second-class ones originated from the symplectic structure of the Chern-Simons term.

To embed all the second-class constraints into the first-class ones by following the improved DQM as in section 2, we first introduce three pairs of auxiliary fields such as $`(\theta ^1,\theta ^2)`$, $`(\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2)`$ and $`(\rho ^1,\rho ^2)`$ satisfying the canonical Poisson brackets

$$\{\theta ^1(x),\theta ^2(y)\}=\{\sigma ^1(x),\sigma ^2(y)\}=\{\rho ^1(x),\rho ^2(y)\}=\delta ^2(xy),$$
(A.6)
which define $`\omega ^{\alpha \beta }`$ in (2.10) as

$`\omega ^{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ& 0& 0\\ 0& ϵ& 0\\ 0& 0& ϵ\end{array}\right).`$ (A.10)
¿From the strong involution relations $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\beta \}=0`$ and the ansatz of the form (2.13), we obtain a solution $`X_{\alpha \beta }`$ explicitly as

$`X_{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\sqrt{m}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{m}& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (A.17)
As results, we converts all the second-class constraints to the first-class ones

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i+\sqrt{m}\theta ^i,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{i+2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{i+2}+(1)^i\sigma ^i\rho ^i,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{i+4}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{i+4}+\rho ^i,`$ (A.18)
with $`i,j=1,2`$ satisfying the rank-zero algebra: $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\beta \}=0`$.

Similarly, we obtain for the improved first-class fields in the extended phase space

$$\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{f}^0=f^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\theta ^2,\hfill & \stackrel{~}{f}^i=f^i+\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}^i\theta ^1+(1)^iϵ_{ij}\sigma ^j,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{A}^0=A^0,\hfill & \stackrel{~}{A}^i=A^i+(1)^iϵ_{ij}\sigma ^j+ϵ_{ij}\rho ^j,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\pi }_0^f=\pi _0^f+\sqrt{m}\theta ^1,\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\pi }_i^f=\pi _i^f+\frac{1}{2}(1)^i\sigma ^i\frac{1}{2}\rho ^i,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\pi }_0^A=\pi _0^A,\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\pi }_i^A=\pi _i^A\frac{1}{2\sqrt{m}}ϵ_{ij}^j\theta ^1+\frac{1}{2}\rho ^i.\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.19)
¿From these, it can readily be shown that in the master self-dual model the Poisson brackets in the extended phase space are exactly equivalent to the Dirac brackets (A.5.

On the other hand, since an arbitrary functional of the improved first-class fields is also first-class, we can also directly obtain the desired first-class Hamiltonian<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3Similar to the section 2, we can also construct the involutive Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ directly by following the method of Batalin et al.  and thus demonstrate the equivalence of $`\stackrel{~}{}_p`$ up to total derivatives. $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ corresponding to the Hamiltonian $`_p`$ in Eq. (2.5) via the substitution $`f^\mu \stackrel{~}{f}^\mu `$, $`A^\mu \stackrel{~}{A}^\mu `$, $`\pi _\mu ^f\stackrel{~}{\pi }_\mu ^f`$ and $`\pi _\mu ^A\stackrel{~}{\pi }_\mu ^A`$:

$`\stackrel{~}{}_p`$ $`=`$ $`_c+\sqrt{m}\theta ^1_if^i+\theta ^2(\sqrt{m}f^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}}ϵ_{ij}^iA^j)+mf^i(1)^iϵ_{ij}\sigma ^j`$
$`(1)^if^0_i\sigma ^i+(f^0A^0)_i\rho ^i\sqrt{m}\theta ^1(1)^iϵ_{ij}^i\sigma ^j`$
$`+\theta ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}}_i\rho ^i(1)^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}}_i\sigma ^i\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}(\sigma ^i)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i\theta ^1^i\theta ^1.`$
Next, we construct the Hamilton equations of motion for these first-class fields

$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\stackrel{~}{f}^0=^i\stackrel{~}{f}^i,\hfill & \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\stackrel{~}{f}^i=mϵ^{ij}\stackrel{~}{f}^j+\frac{1}{m}^i(ϵ_{jk}^j\stackrel{~}{A}^k),\hfill \\ \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\stackrel{~}{A}^0=0,\hfill & \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\stackrel{~}{A}^i=mϵ^{ij}\stackrel{~}{f}^j+^i\stackrel{~}{A}^0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.21)
Here note that the equation of motion for $`\stackrel{~}{f}^0`$ in Eq. (A.21) can be rewritten in terms of covariant form, $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{f}^\mu =0`$, from which one can obtain the explicit form for $`\stackrel{~}{f}^\mu `$, the duality relation : $`\stackrel{~}{f}^\mu =\frac{1}{m}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu \stackrel{~}{A}_\rho `$, now written in terms of the improved first-class (gauge invariant) fields in the extended phase space.


format: text

text:
# Sliding on the inside of a Conical Surface

## 1 Introduction

The conical shape is ubiquitous in nature. Many important large-scale natural formations such as the profile of volcanoes  or the borders of tornadoes present this universal form . On a smaller scale, different devices such as silos, loudspeakers, funnels, pipes, particle precipitators or centrifugal separators have been designed by man using this geometry to perform diverse technical operations . Don’t let us forget other basic devices with conical design such as wash-hand basins and lavatories. Vortices in fluids appear in some cases as evolving cone-like structures , and recently the avalanches of two-dimensional automata modeling the surface of a sandpile have received considerable attention from the scientific community . Although the physical mechanisms behind all these complex phenomena are different, the coincidence and the ubiquity of the conical form in all of them is remarkable.

Bodies falling over inclined surfaces under the influence of gravity are also encountered in every day life. Think, for instance, of a tobbogan, a roller coaster or a snow-board car. These systems are modeled in general physics courses as point-like particles sliding over those surfaces under the action of gravitational and surface reaction forces.

In this work, we consider the mechanical problem of a point-like particle of mass $`m`$ sliding on the inside of a smooth cone of semi-vertical angle $`\varphi _0`$, whose axis points vertically upward (see Fig. 1), as a first step to the understanding of those more complicated hydrodynamical and granular systems spiraling on the inside of a conic surface. This problem is proposed by T.W.B. Kibble in his well known Classical Mechanics textbook . There, the student is asked: (1) to find the Hamiltonian function, using the distance $`r`$ from the vertex and the azimuth angle $`\theta `$ as generalized coordinates ; (2) to show that circular motion is possible for any value of $`r`$, and to determine the corresponding angular velocity $`\omega _0`$ ; (3) to deduce the angle $`\overline{\varphi }_0`$ where the frequency of the small radial oscillations about the circular motion is also $`\omega _0`$.

Setting the coordinate frame at the cone vertex, denoting the vertical direction as the $`OZ`$ axis and using $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ as the generalized coordinates, we deduce that the Hamiltonian function for this problem is

$$=\frac{p_r^2}{2m}+\frac{p_\theta ^2}{2mr^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0}+mgr\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0,$$
(1)
where $`p_r`$ and $`p_\theta `$ stand for the canonically conjugated momenta of $`r`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ respectively. Besides, we have assumed that the level of reference for the potential energy is $`z=0`$, and the constant value of gravity is denoted by $`g`$.
As the coordinate $`\theta `$ does not explicitly appear in $``$, $`\theta `$ is a hidden variable and from the equations of motion we deduce that $`p_\theta `$ is a constant of the motion. Physically this is clear because there are only two forces acting on the particle, one being gravity and the other the force of reaction exerted by the surface which is perpendicular to the surface. Thus, both forces are located in the vertical plane formed by the $`OZ`$ axis and the position vector of the particle, and therefore the momentum of these forces is always horizontal and hence the vertical component of the angular momentum is conserved. In other words $`p_\theta `$ is a constant.
In consequence, we define the effective radial potential energy $`U(r)`$ for this problem as

$$U(r)=\frac{L_z^2}{2mr^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0}+mgr\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0,$$
(2)
where $`L_z`$ is the constant value assumed for $`p_\theta `$.
$`U(r)`$ for $`L_z=1`$ and $`\varphi _0=\frac{\pi }{4}`$, is plotted in Fig. 2. Thus $`U(r)`$ is a confining potential and the particle, no matter what its energy is, cannot escape from the cone. This confinement is due to the effect of gravity for large $`r`$ and to the reaction of the conical surface as a consequence of the acquired rotational kinetic energy for small $`r`$. In both cases, the conservation of $`p_\theta `$ limits the transference between gravitational energy and kinetic energy as will be discussed in detail below. From Eq. (2) we deduce the radial position $`r_0`$ where $`U`$ has its minimum $`U_0`$,

$$r_0=\left[\frac{L_z^2}{m^2g\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0}\right]^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$
(3)
Thus, for any pair $`\varphi _0`$ and $`L_z`$, there exists a unique circular motion at the distance $`r=r_0`$, with angular velocity

$$\omega _0=\frac{L_z}{mr_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0}.$$
(4)
Now, imparting a small $`L_z`$-conserving energy perturbation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to this circular motion, up to an energy $`E=U_0+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, one generates an orbit with small radial oscillation around $`r_0`$ (see Fig. 2). The frequency $`\omega _r`$ of this oscillation is

$$w_r=\sqrt{\frac{1}{m}\left[\frac{d^2U}{dr^2}\right]_{r=r_0}}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{m}\frac{3L_z^2}{mr_0^4\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0}}.$$
(5)
Thus the radial time period $`T_r=\frac{2\pi }{\omega _r}`$ coincides with the period of the circular motion when $`T_r=\frac{2\pi }{\omega _0}`$. This condition leads to

$$\overline{\varphi }_0=\mathrm{sin}^1(1/\sqrt{3})35.3^0,$$
(6)
which completes the answer to the three academic questions proposed at the beginning of this Section.

In Section 2, we will study the equations of motion and the trajectories of this system with arbitrary energies and will obtain a general relation between the periods of radial and angular oscillations. In Section 3, several universal geometrical and dynamical relations for a general trajectory are derived. The rich energy transfer process acting in this system is also studied. In Section 4, we state the conclusions. Finally, in the Appendix A, we will study the necessary conditions for having periodicity in a general orbit.

## 2 Small and Large Radial Oscillations

### 2.1 Equations of the system

As said in Section 1, the dynamics of the particle inside the cone can be expressed in the generalized coordinates $`(r,\theta )`$ (see Fig. 1). If $`v`$ is the velocity of the particle, its kinetic energy $`𝒯`$ is written in these coordinates as

$$𝒯=\frac{1}{2}mv^2=\frac{1}{2}m(\dot{r}^2+r^2\dot{\theta }^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0),$$
(7)
where the dot means the time derivative. The potential energy $`𝒱`$ of the particle in the gravitational field is

$$𝒱=mgz=mgr\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0.$$
(8)
Then the Lagrangian function $``$ for this system in these particular coordinates appears as

$$=𝒯𝒱=\frac{1}{2}m(\dot{r}^2+r^2\dot{\theta }^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0)mgr\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0.$$
(9)
The generalized momenta are

$`p_r={\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{r}}}`$ $`=`$ $`m\dot{r},`$ (10)
$`p_\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{\theta }}}`$ $`=`$ $`mr^2\dot{\theta }\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0.`$ (11)
If we substitute these new coordinates $`(p_r,p_\theta )`$ in the function

$$=\dot{r}p_r+\dot{\theta }p_\theta =𝒯+𝒱,$$

the Hamiltonian $``$ shown in Eq. (1) is obtained.

The equations of motion of the particle are determined by the Lagrange’s equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{r}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{\theta }}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
The first of these equations gives us the evolution of the particle in the radial direction. It yields

$$\ddot{r}r\dot{\theta }^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0+g\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0=0.$$
(12)
And the second puts in evidence an invariant of motion because $``$ is independent on the angular variable $`\theta `$:

$$mr^2\dot{\theta }\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0=cte.=L_z.$$
(13)
This dynamical constant, $`L_z`$, is the vertical component of the angular momentum.
If we substitute the value of $`\dot{\theta }=L_z/(mr^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0)`$ in Eq. (12), the radial evolution is uncoupled from its angular dependence which only remains present through the constant $`L_z`$,

$$\ddot{r}\left(\frac{L_z}{m\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0}\right)^2\frac{1}{r^3}+g\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0=0.$$
(14)
This last equation corresponds to an integrable nonlinear oscillator in the radial direction. After integrating this motion the angular part of the dynamics is obtained through Eq. (13). Next we analyze the behavior of the radial oscillator: first for the small oscillations and then for arbitrary energy perturbations.

### 2.2 The radial motion

We can see at a glance the whole picture of the possible motions in the radial coordinate if the totality of its integral curves on the plane $`(r,\dot{r})`$ are known .
Equation (14) can be easily integrated since the radial and time variables are separated. If we define the parameters

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_z}{m\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0}}\right)^2,`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`g\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0,`$
and $`h`$ is the constant of the first integration of Eq. (14), we obtain

$$\frac{\dot{r}^2}{2}+V(r)=h,$$
(15)
with

$`V(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2r^2}}+Br={\displaystyle \frac{U(r)}{m}},`$ (16)
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{m}},`$ (17)
where $`U(r)`$ is the effective radial potential energy given by Eq. (2) and $``$ is the total energy of the system (Eq. (1)).

Circular motion: Depending on the initial conditions $`(r,\dot{r})_{t=0}`$, the energy constant $`h`$ takes different values and a different equi-energy curve is drawn by the system for every $`h`$ (see Fig. 3). The value $`h=h_0`$ for which the integral curve degenerates in an isolated point, occurs for the only minimum of the potential $`V(r)`$, given by the relation

$$\frac{dV(r)}{dr}=0r=r_0=\sqrt[3]{\frac{A}{B}},$$

where $`r_0`$ was written in Eq. (3) and represents the only existing circular orbit of the system for the actual values of $`L_z`$ and $`\varphi _0`$. By substituting $`L_z=mr_0^2\omega _0\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0`$ in the expression (3), the angular frequency $`\omega _0`$ of the circular motion given by Eq. (4) is found to be

$$\omega _0^2=\frac{g\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0}{r_0\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0}.$$

It is curious that the angle $`\varphi _0`$ which minimizes $`r_0`$ for a $`L_z`$ fixed is the complementary angle of $`\overline{\varphi }_0`$, written in (6), that is, $`\varphi _0=54.7^0`$.
General radial orbit: For $`h<h_0`$ motion is not possible and for $`h>h_0`$ the phase plane organizes itself as a pattern of closed curves nested around the equilibrium point $`r=r_0`$ (Fig. 3). This is a consequence of the confining property of $`V(r)`$, which means

$`\underset{r0}{lim}V(r){\displaystyle \frac{A}{2r^2}}\stackrel{r0}{}+\mathrm{},`$
$`\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}V(r)Br\stackrel{r\mathrm{}}{}+\mathrm{}.`$
Hence, given the initial conditions of the system, the particle inside the cone is oscillating in the radial coordinate between the minimum, $`r_{min}`$, and the maximum, $`r_{max}`$, values of its radial trajectory (Fig. 2). Taking into account that $`r_0^3=A/B`$ and that $`V(r)`$ reaches the same value at these extreme points, $`V(r_{min})=V(r_{max})`$, we obtain a global relation of a particular trajectory:

$$\frac{2r_{min}^2r_{max}^2}{r_{min}+r_{max}}=r_0^3.$$
(18)
### 2.3 Small oscillations

For a value $`h_1`$ slightly bigger than $`h_0`$, the motion of the system is represented approximately on the phase plane $`(r,\dot{r})`$ by an ellipse around the singular point $`r=r_0`$. In this case, $`r_{min}`$ and $`r_{max}`$ are of the same order of magnitude as $`r_0`$ and the relation (18) becomes simplified to

$$r_{min}r_{max}r_0^2.$$
(19)
If we put $`r=r_0+\rho `$, with $`\rho `$ small, and we linearize the expression (15), the equation of a harmonic oscillator is derived:

$$\ddot{\rho }+\omega _r^2\rho 0,$$
(20)
where

$$\omega _r^2=\left[\frac{d^2V}{dr}\right]_{r=r_0}=\frac{3g\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0}{r_0},$$

as was advanced in Eq. (5). This approximation is valid, provided the energy of the perturbation $`\mathrm{\Delta }=m(h_1h_0)`$ is mainly stored in the radial harmonic oscillation. This is verified when the condition $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{m\omega _r^2\rho ^2}1`$ is fulfilled.
The relation between this radial frequency and the frequency of the circular motion is

$$\frac{w_r^2}{w_0^2}=3\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0.$$
(21)
If we define the respective time periods, $`T_r=\frac{2\pi }{w_r}`$ and $`T_0=\frac{2\pi }{w_0}`$, the latter expression implies that

$$\frac{T_0}{T_r}=\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0,$$

which indicates that the angular part of the motion is faster than the radial when $`\varphi _0<\overline{\varphi }_0`$. In this range, the particle will perform many revolutions around the cone axis for each radial oscillation.

An orbit will represent a periodic motion, and thus, a closed trajectory in the four-dimensional phase space $`(r,\theta ,\dot{r},\dot{\theta })`$, when the ratio $`\omega _r/\omega _0`$ is a rational number (see Appendix A). In the case of small radial oscillations the perturbed circular orbit will be periodic if there exists a pair $`(p,q)`$ of integers verifying

$$\frac{p^2}{q^2}=3\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0.$$
(22)
This means that for each pair $`(p,q)`$, with $`p<\sqrt{3}q`$, there is an angle $`\varphi _0`$ of the cone opening for which the perturbed circular orbits are periodic. If this last relation (22) is not satisfied for any pair $`(p,q)`$, the dynamics is quasi-periodic and fill up the torus on which it develops. As an example, if $`p=q=1`$, then $`\varphi _0=\overline{\varphi }_035.3^0`$ (Eq. (6)) and the small radial-oscillating trajectories are ellipses on the cone.

The wave shape of the perturbed circular orbit in the plane $`(\theta ,r)`$ is not sinusoidal as can be checked in Fig. 4. The trajectory covers a longer $`\theta `$-angular distance when its radial coordinate is under the value $`r=r_0`$ than when it is in the upper region of $`r_0`$. A look at the first order approximation to the orbit explains this fact. If we write

$$r(t)r_0+\rho \mathrm{cos}(\omega _rt),$$

then, from Eq. (13), we obtain

$$\theta (t)\omega _0t2\left(\frac{\omega _0}{\omega _r}\right)\left(\frac{\rho }{r_0}\right)\mathrm{sin}(\omega _rt).$$

A whole oscillation in $`r`$ is made when $`\theta `$ runs on the interval $`\frac{\omega _0}{\omega _r}[0,2\pi ]`$. If the perturbation in the $`\theta `$-coordinate is not considered, the orbit $`r(\theta )`$ is sinusoidal and satisfies $`r(\theta )<r_0`$ when $`\theta \frac{\omega _0}{\omega _r}[\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{3\pi }{2}]`$. Actually, a simple calculation shows that the small perturbation forces the dynamics to stay under $`r=r_0`$ on an enlarged $`\theta `$-interval, namely $`\frac{\omega _0}{\omega _r}[\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{2\rho }{r_0},\frac{3\pi }{2}+\frac{2\rho }{r_0}]`$. This shape wave deformation continues in the same direction by increasing the energy of the particle, in such a way that the motion verifies $`r(\theta )<r_0`$ for the biggest part of the $`\theta `$-interval $`\frac{\omega _0}{\omega _r}[0,2\pi ]`$, except for a very narrow region where $`r(\theta )`$ completes the oscillation and reaches $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$ with a sharp peak in the $`(\theta ,r)`$ representation.

### 2.4 Large oscillations

For $`hh_0`$, large oscillations in the radial coordinate are obtained (see Fig. 3). The trajectories become ovoid-like reaching the maximum radial velocity $`\dot{r}_{max}`$ for $`r=r_0`$: $`\dot{r}_{max}=\dot{r}(r_0)`$. As $`r_{max}r_{min}`$, the relation (18) simplifies to

$$2r_{min}^2r_{max}r_0^3.$$

Finding the relation between the radial and angular frequencies requires a more elaborated calculation in this case. We proceed to integrate Eqs. (14) and (13) when $`h\mathrm{}`$, in order to obtain the asymptotic value of $`\omega _r/\omega _\theta `$.

We consider a half-oscillation between the extreme points, $`r_{min}`$ and $`r_{max}`$, of an orbit. We divide this interval into two parts: $`(r_{min},r_0)`$ and $`(r_0,r_{max})`$, which are covered in the time intervals: $`(0,t_1)`$ and $`(t_1,t_2)`$, respectively. As the variables in the radial equation (14) are separated, we write

$$_0^{t_2}𝑑t=_{r_{min}}^{r_{max}}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{2(hV(r))}}=_{r_{min}}^{r_{max}}\frac{rdr}{\sqrt{2hr^22Br^3A}}.$$
(23)
This elliptic integral cannot be put in elemental functions. When $`h\mathrm{}`$, the potential $`V(r)`$ behaves as

$`V(r)V_1(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2r^2}}\text{for}r_{min}<r<r_0,`$
$`V(r)V_2(r)`$ $`=`$ $`Br\text{for}r_0<r<r_{max},`$
and, $`r_{min}`$ and $`r_{max}`$ are now easily calculated,

$`V_1(r_{min})h`$ $``$ $`r_{min}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2h}}},`$
$`V_2(r_{max})h`$ $``$ $`r_{max}{\displaystyle \frac{h}{B}}.`$
Under these assumptions an approximated value of integral (23) is obtained. The error is basically concentrated in the region $`(r_0\mathrm{\Delta }r,r_0+\mathrm{\Delta }r)`$. However, because velocity is maximal in $`r_0`$ and tends to infinity when $`h\mathrm{}`$, the time invested by the system in that region tends to zero and thus the error vanishes.

Substituting $`V(r)`$ by $`V_1(r)`$ and integrating expression (23) in the interval $`(r_{min},r_0)`$, we get

$$t_1\frac{1}{\sqrt{2h}}\sqrt{r_0^2r_{min}^2}\stackrel{h\mathrm{}}{}\frac{r_0}{\sqrt{2h}}.$$
(24)
Making $`V(r)V_2(r)`$ in the region $`(r_0,r_{max})`$, the integral (23) is approximated by

$$t_2t_1\sqrt{\frac{2}{B}}\sqrt{r_{max}r_0}\stackrel{h\mathrm{}}{}\frac{\sqrt{2h}}{B}.$$
(25)
Thus the system spends most of the oscillation time in the upper region of the circular orbit $`r=r_0`$, and it tends to infinity when $`h\mathrm{}`$.

The angular part of the motion is derived from Equation (13),

$$_0^{\theta _2}𝑑\theta =\frac{L_z}{m\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0}_0^{t_2}\frac{dt}{r^2(t)},$$
(26)
where the integral is performed in the angular regions $`(0,\theta _1)`$ and $`(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ which are covered when time runs in the intervals $`(0,t_1)`$ and $`(t_1,t_2)`$, respectively.
Taking into account the relation

$$r^2(t)2ht^2+r_{min}^2\text{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}<t<t_1,$$

and, using the value of $`t=t_1`$ given by expression (24), we obtain $`\theta _1`$ when $`h\mathrm{}`$:

$$\theta _1=\frac{\pi }{2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0}.$$
(27)
The behavior in the second interval $`(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ is quite different. Starting from the relation

$$tt_1\sqrt{\frac{2}{B}}\left(\sqrt{r_{max}r_0}\sqrt{r_{max}r}\right)\text{for}t_1<t<t_2,$$

$`r(t)`$ can be derived. As $`\frac{Bt}{\sqrt{2h}}<1`$, expression (26) is approximately integrated in the interval $`(t_1,t_2)`$. We get in the limit $`h\mathrm{}`$:

$$\theta _2\theta _1\frac{1}{r_0}\sqrt{\frac{2}{h}},$$
(28)
which shows that for large energies the dynamics for $`r>r_0`$ is projected onto a tight peak in the $`(\theta ,r)`$ plane. Thus most of the part of the $`\theta `$-coordinate is covered when the particle is under the circular orbit $`r=r_0`$ although the system spends its time essentially over that circular orbit (see Fig. 5).

Summarizing, if $`\frac{T_r}{2}t_2`$ is the semi-period of the radial oscillation, the frequencies $`w_r`$ and $`\omega _\theta `$ for large energies are

$`\omega _r={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{T_r/2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{t_2}},`$
$`\omega _\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{\theta _2}{T_r/2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi /\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0}{t_2}},`$
which implies that, when $`h\mathrm{}`$, the frequency ratio is

$$\frac{\omega _r}{\omega _\theta }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0.$$
(29)
Comparing this last expression with the frequency ratio (21) for small radial oscillations, a general behavior of this quantity can be advanced:

$$\frac{\omega _r}{\omega _\theta }=k\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0\text{with }k\text{ in the range}\{\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{3}<k<2\\ \text{ }\text{ }\\ h_0<h<\mathrm{}\end{array}.$$
(30)
This relation will be computationally and analytically discussed in the next section.

## 3 Universal Relations of the Dynamics

### 3.1 Universal equations

As has been established in the last section, the evolution of the particle sliding inside the cone is governed by Eq. (14) in its radial part and by Eq. (13) in its angular one. These equations are expressed in a form which depends on the gravitational field and surface geometrical properties and, evidently, on the initial value of the global dynamical constants. We proceed now to write them in a universal form by the rescaling of radial, angular and time variables. In short, all information on the dynamics will be contained in these reduced equations which are independent of any ’external’ information. To obtain the real trajectory from these equations it will be enough to undo the change of variables with the ’external’ information: mass, geometry, field and initial conditions.

If we substitute the value of the vertical angular momentum, $`L_z^2`$, given by Eq. (3) and we perform the change of variable: $`\stackrel{~}{r}=r/r_0`$, radial and angular equations are reduced to

$`\ddot{\stackrel{~}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{r,h_0}^2}{3}}(1\stackrel{~}{r}^3)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (31)
$`\dot{\theta }^2\omega _0^2\stackrel{~}{r}^4`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (32)
where $`\omega _{r,h_0}^2`$ and $`\omega _0^2`$ take the values given by Eqs. (5) and (4), respectively.
Rescaling the time variable by $`\stackrel{~}{t}=\frac{\omega _{r,h_0}}{\sqrt{3}}t`$ and the angular variable by $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi _0`$, the non-dimensional equations of the motion are found:

$`\ddot{\stackrel{~}{r}}+(1\stackrel{~}{r}^3)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (33)
$`\dot{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}\stackrel{~}{r}^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (34)
Remarkably, in this form, the equations apparently lose any characteristic of the system. Every possible trajectory on the conical surface is projected into a solution of these equations and, in that sense, we say that they are universal. They contain all the information about the dynamical behavior of the particle.
In particular, $`\stackrel{~}{r}=1`$ is the singularity representing the circular orbit and any other orbit runs between the extreme values, $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{min}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{max}`$, which satisfy: $`0<\stackrel{~}{r}_{min}<1`$ and $`1<\stackrel{~}{r}_{max}<\mathrm{}`$. Expression (18) is now rewritten as

$$\frac{2\stackrel{~}{r}_{min}^2\stackrel{~}{r}_{max}^2}{\stackrel{~}{r}_{min}+\stackrel{~}{r}_{max}}=1.$$
(35)
### 3.2 Universal frequency relation

From the universal equations of the dynamics, we remake now all the calculations presented in Subsection 2.4 to show the universal relation (30). For simplicity in the notation, we rename the variables: $`\stackrel{~}{r}r`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}t`$.

The energy conservation becomes in the new coordinates

$$\frac{\dot{r}^2}{2}+\stackrel{~}{V}(r)=E$$
(36)
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}(r)=r+\frac{1}{2r^2}`$ and $`E=\frac{h}{gr_0\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0}`$. Hence, in this representation, the dynamics settles in the circular orbit when $`E=3/2`$, and, small or large oscillations are obtained when the value of the normalized energy $`E`$ runs on the interval $`(\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{})`$.
For an arbitrary energy $`E(\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{})`$, $`r_{min}`$ is deduced from the equality:

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(r_{min})=Er_{min}=r_{min}(E).$$

The radial coordinate as function of the time, $`r(t)`$, is calculated after performing the integral:

$$_0^t𝑑t=_{r_{min}}^r\frac{rdr}{\sqrt{2Er^22r^31}}r=r(t,E).$$

For $`t=\frac{T_r}{2}`$, with $`T_r`$ the semi-period of the radial oscillation, $`r_{max}`$ is reached. Recall that $`r_{max}(E)`$ is obtained from Expression (35). Thus, we get $`T_r(E)`$ by solving the equation

$$r_{max}(E)=r(\frac{T_r}{2},E)T_r=T_r(E).$$

The angle $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2`$ covered by the particle during a radial semi-period is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2=_0^{\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\theta }=_0^{T_r/2}\frac{dt}{r^2(t)}\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2=\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2(E).$$

Therefore the frequency ratio obeys the following relation:

$$\frac{\omega _r}{\omega _\theta }=\frac{\pi /\frac{T_r}{2}}{\theta _2/\frac{T_r}{2}}=\frac{\pi }{\stackrel{~}{\theta }_2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0=k(E)\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0,$$
(37)
where

$$k(E)=\left[\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\frac{T_r(E)}{2}}\frac{dt}{r^2(t,E)}\right]^1.$$
(38)
As we calculated in the previous section,

$`k\left(E={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3},`$
$`k(E=\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`2,`$
and as can be deduced from numerical calculations of $`k(E)`$ (see Fig. 6), we claim that

$$\sqrt{3}<k(E)<2\text{when}\frac{3}{2}<E<\mathrm{},$$
(39)
which allows us to approximate integral (38), valid within $`13\%`$, by

$$_0^{\frac{T_r}{2}}\frac{dt}{r^2(t)}\frac{\pi }{2},$$

for any trajectory $`r(t)`$ of arbitrary energy $`E`$.

### 3.3 Universal dynamical relation

We proceed to convert the almost universal frequency ratio (30) in a dynamical relation. If $`N`$ represents the number of revolutions that the particle performs around the cone in the half of a radial oscillation, then $`\theta _2=2\pi N`$, and expression (37) is now written as follows:

$$\frac{\omega _r}{\omega _\theta }=\frac{\pi /\frac{T_r}{2}}{2\pi N/\frac{T_r}{2}}=\frac{1}{2N}=k\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0.$$
(40)
Taking the good approximation $`k2`$, we obtain the universal dynamical relation

$$4N\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}.$$
(41)
In the case of small cone opening, $`\varphi _01`$, this simplifies to

$$4N\varphi _0\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1},$$
(42)
which establishes a simple experimental test to find out if a particle describing a trajectory within a conical-like surface is truly governed by the equations under study. That is, if the particle’s dynamics is equivalent to sliding without friction on the surface.

### 3.4 Universal geometrical relation

Following the same line of reasoning as in Section 3.3 and motivated by the functioning of the industrial ’cyclone’ gas-particle separators , suppose a motion of the system developing on a truncated cone such as that drawn in Fig. 7. The geometrical lengths of the orbit are the maximum and minimum radii, $`R_{min}`$ and $`R_{max}`$, and the vertical height, $`H`$, given by

$`R_{max}`$ $`=`$ $`r_{max}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0,`$
$`R_{min}`$ $`=`$ $`r_{min}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0`$
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_{max}R_{min}}{\mathrm{tan}\varphi _0}}.`$
By replacing the values of $`r_0`$ and $`L_z`$,

$`L_z`$ $`=`$ $`mR_{min}v_{down},`$
$`r_0^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{min}v_{down}}{\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0}}\right)^2,`$
in the relation (18), we find a universal geometrical requirement for an arbitrary trajectory

$$\frac{R_{max}^2}{R_{min}+R_{max}}=\frac{v_{down}^2\mathrm{tan}\varphi _0}{2g},$$
(43)
where $`v_{down}`$ is the linear velocity of the particle at the bottom of its orbit.
Conservation of $`L_z`$ implies that

$$\frac{R_{max}}{R_{min}}=\frac{v_{down}}{v_{up}},$$
(44)
with $`v_{up}`$ the linear velocity at the top of the motion. Expression (43) can also been written as follows:

$$\frac{R_{min}^2}{R_{min}+R_{max}}=\frac{v_{up}^2\mathrm{tan}\varphi _0}{2g}.$$
(45)
These universal geometrical relations can be also used to decide if a physical phenomenon has an underlying dynamics such as that studied here.

### 3.5 Energy transformation

The kinetic energy $`𝒯_\theta `$ of the angular part of the motion can be written as

$$𝒯_\theta =\frac{1}{2}L_z\dot{\theta },$$

and the conservation of energy at a point $`P(r,\theta )`$ of a trajectory is the result of the balance between kinetic and potential energy,

$$\frac{1}{2}m\dot{r}^2+\frac{1}{2}L_z(\dot{\theta }_{down}\dot{\theta })=mg\mathrm{\Delta }z,$$
(46)
where $`\dot{r}`$ and $`\dot{\theta }`$ are the radial and angular velocities at $`P`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=(rr_{min})\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0`$ is the vertical distance from $`P`$ to the bottom of the trajectory and $`\dot{\theta }_{down}`$ is the angular velocity at the bottom of the motion.
If we rename $`v_r=\dot{r}`$ and $`v_{down}=R_{min}\dot{\theta }_{down}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is obtained from the latter expression,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }z=\frac{v_r^2}{2g}+\frac{v_{down}^2}{2g}\left(1\left(\frac{R_{min}}{R}\right)^2\right),$$
(47)
where $`R=r\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0`$.

The vertical distance, $`H=\mathrm{\Delta }z(R_{max})`$, covered by the particle in its motion verifies

$$H=\frac{v_{down}^2}{2g}\left(1\left(\frac{R_{min}}{R_{max}}\right)^2\right).$$
(48)
Observe that not all the kinetic energy can be transferred to potential energy at the top of the orbit. A percentage of the total energy, given by the factor $`\gamma =\left(\frac{R_{min}}{R_{max}}\right)^2`$, remains as angular kinetic energy in order to conserve $`L_z`$. This transference is more efficient when the geometry of the system approaches that of a plane system because $`L_z`$ can be conserved by the large radial component of the trajectory. This happens when $`\varphi _0`$ tends to $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$. On the contrary, the transfer of energy is nearly forbidden and is totally inefficient when the system tends to the cylindrical form, that is, when $`\varphi _0`$ goes to zero.

The interesting energy-transfer process acting in this system, between the angular kinetic term, the radial kinetic term and the potential energy term is not habitual in simple mechanical systems of only two degrees of freedom. This type of idea typically appears later when dealing with considerably more complex systems of three or more degrees of freedom, such as the symmetric top.

Note also that in other problems of a point-like particle sliding under gravity on surfaces such as planes or cylinders, this rich energy-transfer does not occur. There the transfer is as in a bullet motion, i.e., between the ’vertical’ kinetic term and the potential energy term. In the case of sliding on the inside of a spherical surface the energy transfer process occurs as in the cone but with two important differences. First, in the sphere, no matter the value of the energy, the spatial range of the orbits is limited to the size of the system. And, second, when the particle crosses the equatorial line, the vertical reaction of the surface points downward and the particle may lose contact with the surface.
For all these reasons, we believe that the cone problem has a great academic potential and deserves adequate attention in General Physics courses.

## 4 Conclusions

The understanding of the physical mechanisms of many complicated phenomena requires a drastic simplification in a first approach. Here we have isolated two basic ingredients, the conical geometry and the gravitational field, present in different natural formations such as volcanoes or tornadoes, and in a series of technical devices such as pipes, particle precipitators or centrifugal separators.

We have studied the evolution of a particle sliding on the inside of a conical surface, with opening angle $`\varphi _0`$, under the action of gravity. This conservative system has two constants of motion, the total energy, $``$, and the vertical component of the angular momentum, $`L_z`$, which makes it integrable. The initial values of both constants determine the trajectory described in its four-dimensional phase space, which in general is quasiperiodic and it fills up a 2-torus.

Every orbit is closed when it is projected in the radial plane $`(r,\dot{r})`$, running between the two extreme values, $`r_{min}`$ and $`r_{max}`$. For a quasiperiodic trajectory, the oscillations in the angular part are not synchronized with the radial ones. It means that wherever the particle is released on the inside of the cone, it will come back as closely as desired to the same point. Only when the relation between the frequencies of these two (radial and angular) uncoupled modes is a rational number, $`p/q`$, we will have a periodic motion. This is satisfied when $`\frac{p}{q}=k(E)\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0`$, where $`k(E)`$ is a parameter dependent only on the product $`EL_z^{2/3}`$ (see eqs. (30) and (36)) and given by the expression (38). The range of $`k(E)`$ has been numerically calculated in Fig. 6 and it varies in the interval $`\sqrt{3}<k(E)<2`$, where the value $`k=\sqrt{3}`$ is reached for small oscillations about the circular motion and $`k=2`$ when the energy of the particle tends to infinity.

Several universal relations characterizing the dynamics of the system have been obtained. First, the non dimensional equations have been derived by applying different length and time rescaling transformations. Independently of the initial conditions, all the information about the motion is contained in these universal equations. Second, the relation between the radial and angular frequencies has been shown to depend only on the parameter $`k(E)`$. It has been reinterpreted as an universal dynamical relation of the number of revolutions that the particle performs around the cone for each radial oscillation. Third, every trajectory develops on a truncated part of the cone. The characteristic lengths and extreme velocities defining the orbit satisfy a universal geometrical relation. Finally, some relations of the transfer of energy between the orbital, radial and potential energy have been presented.

The application of these relations to some realistic systems can be used to test if the corresponding underlying dynamics is understandable as caused by the combined action of the gravitational field and a force perpendicular to the motion, which could be identified as the reaction force of the conical profile associated with the phenomenon under study. It is our aim to explore this direction in a future work.

## Appendix A Appendix: Periodic Trajectories of the Motion

Periodic motions of a dynamical system are represented by closed orbits. They play a fundamental role in understanding the topology and orbit organization of the phase space, but there are no general methods to find them. Here we sketch a procedure that simplifies the localization of periodic orbits in the present system. It consists of an adequate projection on a phase space of a lower dimension, where the property of periodicity is conserved.
By a conserving periodicity projection we mean that if an orbit is periodic in the space of projection then it is also periodic in the original higher dimensional system. If so, there exists a bi-univocal relation between the periodic orbits of both spaces, and it is enough to find them in the space of projection. Thus the problem is enormously simplified.

The motion of the particle inside the cone is governed by four autonomous differential equations of first order, given by Hamilton’s equations of the system:

$`\dot{r}={\displaystyle \frac{}{p_r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_r}{m}},`$ (49)
$`\dot{\theta }={\displaystyle \frac{}{p_\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_\varphi }{mr^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0}},`$ (50)
$`\dot{p_r}={\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_\varphi ^2}{mr^3\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _0}}mg\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0,`$ (51)
$`\dot{p_\theta }={\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (52)
Hence a trajectory of the system evolves in the four-dimensional phase space with coordinates $`(r,\theta ,p_r,p_\theta )`$, or, equivalently, with coordinates $`(r,\theta ,\dot{r},\dot{\theta })`$ if the change of variables $`(p_r,p_\theta )(\dot{r},\dot{\theta })`$, given by Eqs. (10-11), is performed.
As the dynamical equations fulfil the regular conditions of continuity and smoothness, the field is uniquely determined on each point, and the flow has no singularities in the region of phase space with physical significance. That is, those points whose coordinates verify: $`r>0`$, $`0\theta <2\pi `$ and $`0<\varphi _0<\frac{\pi }{2}`$.
A phase path will be closed, and then periodic, when it visits the same point twice and in consequence, an infinite number of different times:

$$\text{A trajectory is closed}T>0(r,\theta ,\dot{r},\dot{\theta })_{t=0}=(r,\theta ,\dot{r},\dot{\theta })_{t=T}.$$

If we perform the projection $`(r,\theta ,\dot{r},\dot{\theta })(r,\dot{r})`$, the integral curves on the new two-dimensional phase space are solutions of Eq. (15) and they are closed orbits as can be seen, for instance, in Fig. 3. Therefore, for this particular projection, all the four-dimensional trajectories are projected on two-dimensional periodic orbits. This is a non conserving periodicity projection.

By simple inspection of the problem it is obvious that periodic orbits of the equations system (49-52) are those verifying $`(r(t),\theta (t))=(r(t+T),\theta (t+T))`$. Take the origin of time, $`t=0`$, when the trajectory passes through one of the extreme points, $`r_{min}`$ or $`r_{max}`$, of the radial coordinate. At these turning points, the radial velocity vanishes, $`\dot{r}=0`$. As the angular velocity around the cone $`\dot{\theta }`$ depends only on the dynamical constant $`L_z`$ of the motion and on the radial coordinate $`r`$ (see Eq. (13)), it follows that $`(r,\theta ,\dot{r}=0,\dot{\theta })_{t=0}=(r,\theta ,\dot{r}=0,\dot{\theta })_{t=T}`$, and the trajectory is also closed in the total four-dimensional space.
Therefore, in order to find the periodic motions of the whole four-dimensional system we must study the conserving periodicity projection: $`(r,\theta ,\dot{r},\dot{\theta })(r,\theta )`$. The periodic orbits are in this case all those verifying that the ratio between its radial, $`\omega _r`$, and, angular, $`\omega _\theta `$, frequencies is a rational number:

$$\text{Periodic motion}\frac{\omega _r}{\omega _\theta }=\frac{p}{q}\text{ with }p,q\mathrm{Z}.$$
(53)
Note that this conclusion is well-established in literature , and is a consequence of the integrability of the Hamiltonian. The present four-dimensional system has two independent global constants, namely, the energy, $``$, and the vertical component of the angular momentum, $`L_z`$, which allow us to rewrite the Hamiltonian in action-angle coordinates. Hence the trajectories are $`2`$-frequency quasi-periodic and, in general, they fill up a $`2`$-torus. The angular velocities specifying the motion on the $`2`$-torus are $`\omega _r`$ and $`\omega _\theta `$, and the condition for having a periodic orbit is given by Eq. (53).

Figure Captions

1. Geometrical coordinates $`(r,\theta )`$ defining the dynamics of the particle of mass $`m`$, which slides under the action of the gravitational field $`g`$ on the inside of a cone with opening angle $`\varphi _0`$.

2. Plot of the effective radial potential energy, $`U(r)`$, for $`L_z=1`$, $`\varphi _0=\frac{\pi }{4}`$ and m=1.

3. Pattern of solutions of the radial equation (14) for $`\varphi _0=\frac{\pi }{4}`$. These are closed curves between $`r_{min}`$ and $`r_{max}`$ taking the maximal radial velocity for $`r=r_0`$. (a) $`L_z=0.1`$, $`r_0=0.142`$ ; (b) $`L_z=1`$, $`r_0=0.660`$ ; (c) $`L_z=10`$, $`r_0=3.066`$.

4. Small radial oscillations about the circular motion for $`L_z=1`$: $`rr_0+\mathrm{\Delta }r`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{max}0.05`$. (a) $`\omega _r>\omega _0`$ for $`\varphi _0=\frac{\pi }{4}>\overline{\varphi }_0`$, $`r_0=0.660`$. (b) $`\omega _r<\omega _0`$ for $`\varphi _0=\frac{\pi }{6}<\overline{\varphi }_0`$, $`r_0=0.778`$.

5. Large radial oscillations about the circular motion for $`L_z=1`$: $`rr_0+\mathrm{\Delta }r`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{max}1.5`$. (a) $`\omega _r>\omega _\theta `$ for $`\varphi _0=\frac{\pi }{4}>\overline{\varphi }_0`$, $`r_0=0.660`$. (b) $`\omega _r<\omega _\theta `$ for $`\varphi _0=\frac{\pi }{6}<\overline{\varphi }_0`$, $`r_0=0.778`$.

6. Numerical calculation of $`k=\frac{\omega _r}{\omega _\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi _0}`$ as a function of $`r\mathrm{\_}relation`$: (+) $`r\mathrm{\_}relation=\frac{r_{min}}{r_0}`$ and (x) $`r\mathrm{\_}relation=\frac{r_0}{r_{max}}`$. This curve is independent of $`L_z`$ and $`\varphi _0`$. In this case, the computation has been performed for $`L_z=1`$ and $`\varphi _0=\frac{\pi }{4}`$.

7. Characteristic lengths of a typical orbit developing on the truncated cone defined by $`R_{min}`$, $`R_{max}`$ and $`H`$.